Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Cyprus

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am pleased to have been successful in obtaining the first Adjournment debate on the first Wednesday after our return from the summer recess.
I begin by declaring my interest in the matter. I have been to Cyprus on a number of occasions and, for five days last month, I was fortunate enough to be the guest of the Cyprus House of Representatives, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the former hon. Member for Edmonton, Dr. Ian Twinn, and my wife. We met the Greek Cypriot political leaders and the candidates for the presidency.
My personal abiding concern about the island of Cyprus goes back a great deal longer, because my late grandfather served there for a number of years towards the end of the second world war and after it. When looking through some of his papers and photographs—he lived into his mid-90s and died a few years ago—I was fortunate enough to find the service records written by his brigadier at the end of my grandfather's service in Cyprus in the late 1940s. As a child, my grandfather's tales of his great friendships with Cypriots, especially those in the Troödos mountains, were of great interest to me. I subsequently formed a number of close friendships with many Cypriots, not least from among the many whom I knew when I was a student immediately after the sad days of the Turkish invasion and the establishment of an illegal regime in northern Cyprus in 1974.
The refusal of the western world to intervene at the time of that illegal act remains a blot on its record. I contrast unfavourably the then Labour Government's spineless act of washing their hands over it with the bold and resolute way in which Lady Thatcher and other Conservatives stood up to the Warsaw pact and responded to the invasions of the Falklands and Kuwait.
Today, I should like to consider the present and the future of Cyprus.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in Cyprus, can he tell us whether he has ever taken the opportunity in recent times to visit northern Cyprus or to speak to the elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community there?

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are great difficulties connected with visits to that illegal

regime, but on a number of occasions I have discussed that matter with representatives of Turkey in this country. Frankly, I have not chosen to cross the green line because I find it difficult to establish contacts with an illegal regime. On several occasions in the past, however, I have visited the green line with a number of my colleagues and I have had an opportunity to consider the situation in that illegal regime. I shall respond in more detail to the hon. Gentleman's question later. It is important to look at what has happened in the period of occupation and I shall address that later.
I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), in his place. I sincerely welcome what Ministers said in Foreign Office Question Time yesterday and I recognise that the Minister confirmed that the new Government support the accession of Cyprus to the European Union, as did the previous Government.
In view of Britain's special relationship with Cyprus and the advanced knowledge of the complexities of the Cyprus problem, which are well understood by those involved, both in the EU and in this country, it is extremely useful and constructive that Britain will hold the presidency of the EU when negotiations start in April next year for the accession of Cyprus. I look forward to the British Government's firm commitment to the accession being reinforced in the coming months. Accession to the European Union will offer the best possible guarantee for long-term security and prosperity for all the people of Cyprus.
Turkish Cypriots will probably be the prime beneficiaries of entry to Europe, because, since the invasion, the economy of the occupied part of Cyprus has plummeted. It is noticeable that, before the invasion, the northern part of the island was the more prosperous and the southern part was relatively undeveloped; since the invasion, which resulted in the Greek Cypriot community being forced to move to the southern part of the island, the economy in that region has improved dramatically, whereas there are great areas of dereliction in the north. In Famagusta, one can see the extent of the wastage of resources.
Entry to Europe will serve as a catalyst and open the way to a solution, which I am sure hon. Members want, even those who have close contacts with the illegal regime in the north. That will, of itself, help to ease tension between Turkey and Greece, which has been at a high level in recent months. However, the House should take careful note of the fact that Turkey has recently intensified its campaign to block the process. It has threatened the integration and annexation of occupied areas with Turkey. It is deplorable that during a recent visit to occupied Cyprus—the illegal regime in the north—the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, accompanied by seven of his Ministers and a number of warships, signed what he called an integration agreement between Turkey and the occupied parts of Cyprus.
It is ironic that, in an effort to stop the EU accession process, Turkey argues that Cyprus cannot be admitted to the EU as that would be the same as a union of Cyprus with another country. Turkey refers to the 1960s treaties, which it has previously said are no longer in force—such contradictory references show the flaws in Turkish logic. Turkey's arguments have been rejected by the EU and international lawyers on the basis that the EU is clearly


not a separate and independent state. Discussions at the time of Austria's accession showed that the Turkish argument is baseless. It is astonishing that Turkey, which in 1974 acted in violation of the 1960 treaties, now considers it appropriate to attempt to derive legal benefit from those treaties.
Madam Speaker, you will know that this summer two rounds of intercommunal negotiations took place at Troutbeck, in upstate New York in the United States, and at Glion, near Montreux in Switzerland. Unfortunately, once again, no progress was achieved on the fundamental issues. The positive and constructive attitude of the Greek Cypriot delegation, led by President Clerides, was again met by the negative attitude and behaviour of the Turkish side.
The negative feeling was reinforced by the comments of the British permanent representative to the United Nations, who was the president of the Security Council at that time. After the briefing of Senor Diego Cordovez, who is the special adviser to the Secretary-General, on the outcome of the Glion talks, the British ambassador, Sir John Weston, said that
there was a sense of disappointment that it hadn't been possible in the event to make more progress at Glion.
From Sir John's remarks, it is clear that no fault attached to Senor Cordovez, and it was stressed that
commendation was due to President Clerides for the flexibility and co-operation that he had showed at this round of talks…there was…concern and disappointment that further substantive progress…was impeded by the attempt to bring preconditions to the table by the other party, and here of course I mean the Turkish Cypriots.
However, it was felt that
the two parties at the highest level do remain committed to the future of this process",
which is a hopeful sign for the future. Sir John said that that was
also the sense of the members of the Security Council.
Sir John made it clear that there was strong support and endorsement for
the Secretary-General's good offices mission in which Senor Cordovez plays an absolutely central part.
Everyone agrees that
The present status quo is unacceptable. There has to be further pursuit of the comprehensive settlement we all seek in accordance with Security Council Resolutions.
Sir John went on:
Nobody ever thought that this process was going to be easy…in these two rounds of talks at Troutbeck and at Glion there has in fact been some progress registered particularly at a practical level affecting humanitarian issues on the island of Cyprus.
On 31 July, there was an agreement about missing persons, which I am sure everyone with Cyprus's interests at heart welcomes. The Security Council expressed its approval of that. Sir John made it clear that it was essential
to move on to get to the next stage of doing the hard work that will make it possible to resume the process of negotiations between the parties directly.
Senor Cordovez has said that, as soon as next year's presidential elections in Cyprus are over, he intends to seek further progress and members of the Security

Council "warmly supported" his intention to continue paying visits. However, the Security Council stressed how important it was that no one involved in the process
say or do things which were going to raise the level of tension further on the island or diminish the chances of making progress toward a peace settlement—that will call for good sense all around—we want to use the intervening weeks and months to see further progress made particularly on the humanitarian side.
It is, therefore, with great sadness that one reflects on the fact that there has recently been a great deal of air activity—buzzing—over the Republic of Cyprus by Turkish jets. Turkey has completely ignored what Sir John Weston said on behalf of the Security Council about not indulging in inflammatory acts. It is fair to say that Turkey's intransigence is nothing new. In his latest comprehensive report on Cyprus, submitted to the Security Council in May 1994, the former UN Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, stated that
the lack of any progress whatsoever is due to one fundamental reason: the lack of political will on the Turkish side".
Great difficulty has been caused by the many settlers from Anatolia, whom the Turkish regime has put into the occupied territories of northern Cyprus. They have no fundamental links with the area and all of us who know Cyprus recognise that the Turkish Cypriots resent the importation of those settlers. Another matter of great concern is the activity of the Turkish Grey Wolves organization—I see the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) nodding—and the resulting deaths on the green line, which, as television pictures clearly showed, were witnessed by senior figures from Turkey.

Mr. Roger Gale: Earlier in his speech, my hon. Friend was asked whether he had visited the northern part of Cyprus and he said that he had not. Does he accept that several hon. Members, including myself and some Labour Members, have crossed the green line to visit the north? We have spoken to members of the Turkish Cypriot community and have heard their real concern that the settlers to whom my hon. Friend referred are taking over their island. The Turkish Cypriots are becoming a minority in their own country and many have left and come to the United Kingdom. They are gravely concerned about their own future and the future of the whole island. Is it not desperately sad that some Members of this honourable House seek to give succour and comfort to the illegal regime in the north of Cyprus?

Mr. Hawkins: I quite agree. What my hon. Friend says has been reflected in my discussions with Turkish Cypriots who have come to this country for the very reasons that he mentions. My hon. Friend has had the advantage of visiting the occupied part of the island. I have not had the chance to do that, but I have talked to Turkish Cypriots in this country—

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are always two points of view in such situations? He has spoken of conditions in northern Cyprus, a place he has never visited, although he has visited the south. Is he aware that there are almost as many foreigners living in southern Cyprus as there are in northern Cyprus, for instance? There are thousands of Lebanese and thousands of Russians there, and many Greek Cypriots resent their presence. Indeed, many of


them have had to leave and have come to live here in London in even larger numbers than have the Turkish Cypriots.

Mr. Hawkins: Judging by my visits to the legal regime in the Republic of Cyprus I would have to disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have detected no resentment; indeed, the inward investment that foreign visitors have brought to the Republic of Cyprus has been warmly welcomed. Based on my extensive discussions with many Greek Cypriots here, I know that although they choose to travel the world they always retain close links with the home island.
What is more, there is a huge difference between the importation to northern Cyprus of settlers from Anatolia who are imposed on the people of northern Cyprus against their will and the voluntary settling of visitors from abroad in southern Cyprus. It amounts to the difference between the dictatorial regime in the illegally occupied north and the free, democratic regime in the Republic of Cyprus.
As long as Turkey is working to an entirely different political agenda from that of the rest of the western world, and as long as the threat of partition and of the expansionist policies followed by the Turkish Government persists, the Cyprus Government have not only the right but the duty to protect their people from the military threat of Turkey. Although Cyprus's military capabilities cannot possibly match those of Turkey, its Government are trying to avoid a possible repetition of the 1974 conflict. President Clerides has repeatedly proposed the demilitarisation of Cyprus, which will include the withdrawal of foreign troops and the disbanding of local military forces, while an international force will be stationed in Cyprus for as long as necessary to ensure the implementation of the solution during the transitional period.
I should like to pay a tribute to one of the British service men serving with the UN force on the green line. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and I, and other members of our delegation, met him during the summer when visiting the green line. The troops stationed there had not been warned of our coming. We were all impressed by the way this soldier spoke to us, and by his personal commitment to the island and to service with the United Nations. After 10 or 15 minutes of conversation with him, I was most impressed by how he took everything in his stride, including the dangers of serving in the divided island, and by his diplomacy and skill when faced with an unexpected delegation of Greek Cypriots and Members of this House. The episode served to reinforce my great admiration for all who serve in the British Army, and it contrasted sharply with some of the criminal incidents in which some members of Her Majesty's forces have been involved on the island. I believe that that episode shows those incidents to have been aberrations, and I remain very impressed by most members of the British forces.
As for the future, it is fair to say that everyone on the Security Council who has been involved in the issue recognises that Greek Cypriots in the republic are committed to a just and long-lasting solution in a bizonal, bicommunal federation—an idea accepted by both sides, theoretically, in the 1977 and 1979 high-level agreements. Such a solution would preserve the integrity of Cyprus as one sovereign state and as a state with one international personality as a matter of international law.
In order to bring about a just and long-lasting solution, I believe that the security aspects must be dealt with. A satisfactory solution to the problem of displaced persons must also be found. Human rights and basic freedoms should be safeguarded in accordance with the acquis communautaire and other international instruments of human rights.
In a recent UN communiqué, Heads of Government reaffirmed their support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus, and called for the implementation of the UN resolutions on Cyprus, in particular Security Council resolutions 365 of 1974, 550 of 1984 and 939 of 1994. They regretted that negotiations on a solution have been at an impasse for far too long, and they strongly supported the process of direct intercommunal talks under the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices.
The Heads of Government also expressed their concern at recent Turkish threats to use force and to integrate the occupied territory, and reiterated their support for President Clerides's demilitarisation proposals, calling for the withdrawal of all Turkish forces and settlers, the return of refugees to their homes, the restoration of and respect for the human rights of all Cypriots, and an accounting for all missing persons. They expressed their disappointment that progress had been impeded by the efforts of the Turkish Cypriot side to introduce preconditions to the talks; and called for a co-operative attitude by both sides so as to achieve a comprehensive, just and workable settlement on the basis of a bicommunal and bizonal federation.
While noting the existence of the Commonwealth action group on Cyprus, the Heads of Government also welcomed the initiative of the Commonwealth Secretary-General in nominating an observer at the UN-sponsored negotiations; and recognised that Britain, as a permanent member of the Security Council and a guarantor power, occupies a special position in the matter.
It is certainly true that many right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have taken a special interest in Cyprus. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) here; he is another friend of Cyprus with a long-standing interest in the island. Other hon. Members with an interest cannot be with us this morning, unfortunately. The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has told me that a ministerial engagement will prevent her from being here this morning, but she, too, has a long-standing interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has a long-standing commitment to Cyprus and to a peaceful future for the island. The same applies to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who has just come into the Chamber. I welcome them all.
I regret the recent actions of the Turkish side. In recent days, the newspapers have referred to a heightening of the tension. This comes as Richard Holbrooke, the American negotiator, was expected to call for a ban on all Greek and Turkish military flights over the island, in the hope of averting any fresh conflict. We hope and pray that there will be no fresh conflict, but it is extremely worrying to learn that Turkish aeroplanes have been violating Cyprus airspace. Fortunately, no shots were fired when Turkish aeroplanes buzzed the island.
There are, however, further regional and geo-political grounds for concern. There have been deteriorating relations between Turkey and Russia, apparently because


of covert Turkish military support for the Chechen separatists. Turkey has been issuing some rather unbelievable claims. Its recent claims that Russian missiles might be converted to ground-to-ground weapons capable of landing on the Turkish mainland have been ridiculed by western military experts, one of whom is quoted as saying:
It would be like buying a Porsche and trying to convert it into a snowplough.
However, we are worried that the Turkish regime has adopted a deliberately provocative attitude in the past. One only prays that Cyprus will have a peaceful future. I call on all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have a concern about Cyprus as an island and the future of all its people, whether of Turkish or Greek origin, to work together to participate in a solution for that still sadly divided island.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the House this morning.

Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on initiating the debate and on the presentation of his speech. He rightly said that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have for very many years worked together as a group for Cyprus and for the people of Cyprus, be they Turkish Cypriots or—

Mr. Maginnis: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is mistaken. Many hon. Members in the Chamber have repeatedly and consistently said, in speeches in the House and at meetings outside it, that their commitment is to the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish Cypriots. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to deny that; the facts are on the record.
Rightly, we often debate Cyprus in the House. I chair the Commonwealth Parliamentary Cyprus Group—a group which comprises members from both Houses and all parties.
The long-running tragedy of Cyprus has continued for far too long. The invasion of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974 was a flagrant abuse of the territory of a democratic country, a member state of the Commonwealth and a country of which the United Kingdom is a guarantor power.
Recalling the countless attempts that have been made since 1974 to find an honourable settlement, I—and, I am sure, many other hon. Members and Cypriots, be they Greek or Turkish—am filled with despair. There have been intercommunal talks and confidence-building measures. The United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union have sought to obtain a settlement in Cyprus—sadly, without success.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke of the recent talks between President Clerides and Mr. Denktas in the United States and in Switzerland, and he commented on the statement made by the British ambassador, Sir John Weston. It conveys very well the frustration that a very senior diplomat feels on the issue. Following the failure

of the talks, the European Union External Affairs Commissioner, Mr. Hans Van den Broek, said that he found it "unacceptable" for Mr. Denktas to demand that the European Union should freeze its plans for accession talks with Cyprus before further negotiations could go ahead. There we have two clear statements by prominent and powerful diplomats, who lay the blame squarely on Mr. Denktas and his colleagues for the absence of progress.
As I said when the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) shook his head, I, and I believe all of us who are committed to helping to find a solution in Cyprus, have always been committed to the rights of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to security and prosperity in what we seek—a united Cyprus. That said, although there has been enormous suffering among both Greek and Turkish Cypriots since 1974, obviously the Turkish Cypriot has suffered most. Undoubtedly, northern Cyprus has suffered far more than the Republic of Cyprus, and that is surely one reason why many of us continue to try, in the House and in other assemblies, to obtain an honourable settlement to end this long-running tragedy.
I mentioned the despair that many of us feel. If my hon. Friend the Minister were to ask his officials to write on the left-hand side of a piece of paper concessions made by the Greek Cypriots since 1974, and on the right those made by the Turkish Cypriots, he would find that the Greek Cypriots, under successive Presidents, have made all the concessions in Cyprus since 1974.

Mr. Maginnis: That is not true.

Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not true. That is not borne out by the facts, which I shall outline.
Let us consider events since 1974. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the thousands of Turkish troops stationed in the occupied north. Mr. Denktas has made no attempt to reduce the number of Turkish troops in the occupied area. We know of the enormous abuse that has taken place of the Greek Cypriot community living in the occupied area, in the Karpas region.
The late Lord Finsberg, who was a member of the Council of Europe, was required by the Council of Europe to report on conditions in northern Cyprus. He did so about 18 months ago, and described the enormous human rights abuses of those living in the occupied area. I shall not repeat his comments. They were an indictment of Mr. Denktas, revealing the conditions that he was imposing on those people.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned illegal settlers. In the early 1990s, the Council of Europe—to which I am a delegate—commissioned the Cou Cou report, which presented clear evidence of the thousands of mainland Turks brought in deliberately by Mr. Denktas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and I are deeply concerned about Famagusta. Mr. Denktas deliberately reneged on a promise to hand back Famagusta to the Republic of Cyprus. About three years ago, I initiated a debate in the Chamber solely about Famagusta, and no one denied that he had done so. I never received a letter from Mr. Denktas


or any of his supporters to say, "You were misleading the House." Mr. Denktas said that he would hand back Famagusta, but he never did.

Mr. Maginnis: But is not the handing back of the Varosha district of Famagusta, which is something that should have happened, linked with access to Nicosia airport and the provision of a terminal for northern Cypriots at that airport? Has that concession—a very important concession to the lifeline of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—been given, or is there a willingness to give it?

Mr. Cox: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman says that Famagusta should be handed back and I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed in the Republic of Cyprus. No doubt the other supposed conditions to which he refers are the type of conditions that Mr. Denktas would seek to impose. We know that, in the context of the intercommunal talks and the confidence-building measures, all those issues were willingly and repeatedly discussed by the Republic of Cyprus. However, the Republic of Cyprus wanted the complete return of the town of Famagusta, not the half-issues that Mr. Denktas raised regarding its return. That has been the stumbling block.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that there were two proposals in the same set of proposals: one referred to Famagusta and the other to Nicosia airport being opened under United Nations supervision? Mr. Denktas, however, insisted on linking the opening of Famagusta with the opening of the airport on terms that would have meant a de facto recognition of the northern regime, contrary to the United Nations proposals.

Mr. Cox: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
The whole world was appalled by the brutal murder last year of three Greek Cypriots. Two of those murders were filmed on video. The fact that Mr. Denktas has done nothing to bring to justice those who committed the murders must be the most damning indictment that one can make of him.
We know what has happened since 1974. Where do we go now? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to Richard Holbrooke, the United States special envoy. Our special envoy is Sir David Hannay, and obviously they both work closely together. What settlement are those two special envoys seeking for Cyprus? Will territory that was taken in the 1974 invasion be returned? Will property and land, much of which is now occupied by illegal settlers, be returned? Will those living on the island of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish, be able to live or move wherever they wish within the island? Is that the kind of settlement that those two special envoys, with the assistance of the United Nations and other organisations such as the Council of Europe and the European Union, want to achieve? Does the Minister have any idea, from the discussions that Sir David Hannay will have had with Mr. Denktas, whether Mr. Denktas is genuinely willing to negotiate such a settlement—or will he impose new conditions as a deliberate attempt to stall meaningful discussions that would lead to a settlement, as he did in the recent talks?
Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots are more than capable of developing and forming the Government that they would want in a united Cyprus. I am sure that they have

the ability to develop their country both socially and economically. But until we get over the hurdle, which we have been unable to get over since 1974, we must wonder where to go from here.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to something of crucial importance: Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. He said, as did the European External Affairs Commissioner, that membership of the European Union can only benefit Cyprus and its people, be they Greek or Turkish. No one in the House would disagree with that. We cannot allow Mr. Denktas repeatedly to delay discussion, then threaten to take the occupied area of Cyprus into mainland Turkey. I hope that the Minister will give a clear statement this morning on Britain's attitude to the possibility that Turkey will annex the northern area of a member state of the Commonwealth—a country for which we are a guarantor power. What would we, the European Union and the Americans do? Many hon. Members would not be prepared to sit in this Chamber and say, "It is regrettable, but these things happen." It would be totally unacceptable. We hear such threats being made repeatedly, not only by Mr. Denktas but by senior Turkish politicians.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made another valid point when he referred to the continued infringement of Cypriot airspace by Turkish aircraft. We know that that happens. I have asked questions on that issue in the Western European Union and said that we hope that both sides will cool the issue, but only one side—Turkey—is creating the provocation. That is yet another example of the enormous dilemma that the Government face.
I do not agree with all the efforts that were made by the previous Administration, but I genuinely believe that they wanted a settlement. We cannot allow the problem to continue. For 23 years, a Commonwealth country with a democratically elected Government has been occupied by a foreign power and we do nothing about it. The so-called "independent state" was initiated by Mr. Denktas years ago, but only one country—Turkey—still recognises it. If Mr. Denktas has created such a wonderful state, one would have thought that by now a number of countries would recognise it.
Cyprus is a small, beautiful country. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will agree that, with a settlement and with membership of the European Union, within about five years Cyprus could become one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. We cannot, however, allow the problem to continue year after year. The British Government cannot say, "It is regrettable. We have tried but have got nowhere, because we have substantial interests in Cyprus. We cannot simply hope that we shall get a settlement one day.
I hope that, in the coming months, we shall see real progress towards a settlement. I have no doubt about the kind of Cyprus that I want. I want a united Cyprus where the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots are honoured and where security is safeguarded, and I want Cyprus to become a member of the European Union. We cannot allow Mr. Denktas to continue to stall and delay a settlement that could have been reached years ago. I hope that the Government are fully committed to achieving an honourable settlement as soon as possible.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I have been a visitor to Cyprus since 1972. I have not taken part in many of the debates on Cyprus in recent years, but I have watched


the subject closely because I have a cottage there—properly declared and bought from a Greek Cypriot in 1972 as, at that time, there were only two administrations on the island of Cyprus. Those were the Cyprus Government, which we recognised, and the United Kingdom sovereign bases. Strangely enough, they have not been mentioned by the previous two speakers.
I saw how the Turkish Cypriot community was being treated—not very well. I saw the Greeks in Athens increasing the pressure for enosis between Cyprus and Greece and, finally, the Greeks overthrowing the independent sovereign nation of Cyprus and its Greek Cypriot President Makarios, and imposing Nikos Sampson on the people of that island. Then there was the request by one of the guarantor powers—Turkey—to the United Kingdom to join it to repulse the Greek takeover of Cyprus and the Greek demolition of the constitution of Cyprus. The Labour Government of that time failed to respond to that request, as we all know, and finally Turkey, as a guarantor power, intervened in 1974.
I had hoped that the debate would be concerned with the interests of both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. In fairness to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), he did at times stress that his concern was to assist both communities. I was terribly disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who was clearly biased, one-sided and bigoted in his interpretation of events in that island.

Mr. O'Hara: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, will he recognise that what happened in 1974 was an aborted coup d'etat supported by a discredited fascist Government in Greece, who subsequently fell; that Nikos Sampson was deposed from his temporary position and imprisoned by the proper authorities of Cyprus when the proper Government were restored; and that although, under the treaty of guarantee, Turkey might have the right to intervene, that right of intervention ceased when the status quo was restored?

Mr. Taylor: We could argue for years about what happened. I heard some criticism of the Labour Government's action at that time. I supported some of the things that that Government did at the time.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman's point, it is true that, following the overthrow of Archbishop Makarios by the Greeks in Athens, the imposed dictatorship in Cyprus collapsed as a result of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus. Incidentally, not only did the dictatorship in Cyprus collapse, but the colonels' fascist regime in Greece collapsed and democracy was restored to Greece as a result of those events. We could reinterpret history for hours if we went on.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: No, I want to carry on, as time is running out.
There are at present three administrations in Cyprus, whether we recognise them or like them. There is the Greek Cypriot administration in the south, the Turkish

Cypriot administration in the north and the British sovereign administration in Episkopi, Akrotiri and Dhekelia.
As the hon. Member for Tooting said, Cyprus is one of the most beautiful places in Europe. That is why I chose to have a cottage there. At that time, the area was Greek Cypriot. The village that I am in was 50 per cent. Greek Cypriot and 50 per cent. Turkish Cypriot. It is now 100 per cent. Turkish Cypriot. There are some mainlanders there as well, but the people are mostly Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cypriots had to go. However, the Turkish Cypriots who came into the village also had to go—from southern Cyprus. The Greeks put them out and they had to come into northern Cyprus. Many of them came from Paphos and Limassol.
In this context, I praise the Labour Government of the day. After the Greek coup and the intervention of the Turkish troops, Turkish Cypriots in their thousands were locked up for months in boiling heat and the most inhuman conditions in football stadiums in Limassol and Paphos. Only through the intervention of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Callaghan, were those Turkish Cypriots released from those inhuman conditions and allowed free passage into northern Cyprus, where they now live.
Many of the people whom I know in the village formerly lived in southern Cyprus but had to escape, leaving behind their homes, property, businesses and jobs, and come penniless up into northern Cyprus, but at least they got freedom as a result of the intervention of the then Labour Government.
It is right to say that the division of Cyprus is most unfortunate. We want a settlement in that island. We must ask ourselves what a nation is. Is a nation just an area of land, or is a nation a people with a distinct culture, a religion and a history? The former right hon. Member for South Down, Enoch Powell, speaking on the subject in the House, said that he considered the Turkish Cypriots to be a nation, because under the definition, they qualify as a nation and a people.
Coming from the island of Ireland, I realise the problems of divisions among the different nations that share an island. In the island of Cyprus there are two nations: the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. The United Kingdom recognised that at the time of the Zurich and London agreements in 1959–60. That is why we built into the then constitution an extremely complicated system of government and power sharing in the assembly in Nicosia. It collapsed because it was far too complicated. Perhaps there is a lesson there for Northern Ireland as it considers its future.
I was disturbed to hear some of the accusations thrown at Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots today. With regard to Cyprus joining the European Union, I agree with the hon. Member for Tooting, who said that if Cyprus joined the European Union, it would bring even greater advantages to the Turkish Cypriots than to the Greek Cypriots. That is true, because the Turkish Cypriots are a much poorer section of the Cyprus community than are the Greek Cypriots.
One of the reasons for that is that since 1974, all moneys from the World bank, the European Community and other international organisations have gone only to the Greek Cypriot administration. The Turkish Cypriots have been denied funding from those international organisations. I remember dealing with the matter when


I was a Member of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. That state of affairs is contrary to clause 5 of the association agreement between Cyprus and the European Union, which specifically stated that both communities were to benefit fairly from European funds invested in the island.
Membership of the EU would be beneficial, but we in the EU should not wish to bring into our community an unsettled and divided Cyprus. It would be terrible for the European Union to inherit the problem. The division of Cyprus affects not just Cyprus, but Turkey, Greece and the future of the relationships in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. It has major security and political implications for NATO, the EU and the middle east.
The situation is becoming serious because of the new military agreement between the Greek sector and Greece. It has been mentioned—it is always mentioned—that there are Turkish troops in northern Cyprus, but none of the previous speakers was honest enough also to state that there are Greek mainland troops in southern Cyprus, in total contradiction of the terms of the Zurich and London agreements, which provided for 1,000 Greek troops to be in southern Cyprus. There are many more, but there is no condemnation of that, and no mention of the fact that Greece now has military bases in southern Cyprus, in contravention of the Zurich and London agreements.
We hear about one or two Turkish aeroplanes, apparently flying over Greek Cypriot airspace. That is what is alleged. It may have happened, but, as I said earlier, there are always two sides to the story. To be fair, we must examine both. I ask the Minister to respond to reports that Greek military and Greek Cypriot military aeroplanes have entered British airspace in Akrotiri and Dhekelia and that Her Majesty's Government have protested to the authorities in Nicosia and in Athens about those armed flights over British sovereign territory. Will the Minister confirm those reports?
I support Cyprus's membership of the European Union, but I believe that Brussels has bungled the issue. I support the United Nations initiative to bring the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots together. In July this year, Greek Cypriots returned for the first time to the village in which my little cottage is located. It was nice to see them back—if only for a one-day visit. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that when he visited southern Cyprus he could not visit northern Cyprus. That is not correct: people can cross into northern Cyprus from the south for at least one day and sometimes for a week. People cannot enter the south from northern Cyprus, but the Turkish Cypriots allow people to enter northern Cyprus—so one party is more generous than the other.
The United Nations has made progress, and Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktas have met on the two occasions mentioned. Some humanitarian progress has been made on the issue of missing persons, and there has been some inter-community co-operation socially, with visits to villages and to the St. Andreas monastery in the Karpas. It is very upsetting to see that area so depressed—but many things in Cyprus are upsetting. Mosques in southern Cyprus have been destroyed and Muslim graveyards have been desecrated. Greek Orthodox churches have also been desecrated in northern Cyprus.
There is fault on both sides—there are always two sides to the story in Cyprus. We must consider both, rather than peddling the propaganda of only one side—particularly if

that side has paid for a nice freebie visit to southern Cyprus or to the north. Both administrations bring people to their areas in an attempt to win them over to their point of view—and they often succeed. I assure hon. Members that I have never had a free trip to northern Cyprus: I travel at my own expense.
I think that Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktas can deliver a settlement in Cyprus. I would be worried if both gentlemen left the political scene causing a leadership vacuum. Strong leadership is essential if there is to be a settlement—we know that from events on the island of Ireland. As progress was being made, Brussels intervened and announced that negotiations would begin on the accession of Cyprus to the European Union and that that would proceed with or without a settlement in Cyprus

Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman's representation of the situation in Cyprus is a travesty. He has failed so far to justify the presence of some 40,000 Turkish troops on the northern part of the island or of some 80,000 illegal settlers. The continued presence of those people for 23 years has nothing to do with the aborted coup of 1974. Does the right hon. Gentleman claim that that illegal regime in what he refers to as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—no one else recognises it—should be allowed to hold to ransom the island's entry into the European Union? If he does, I assure him that many hon. Members would profoundly disagree.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the House that quite a few hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. It is only a short debate, so any interventions should be very brief.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Members who have spoken this morning have, as usual, supported the Greek Cypriots and adopted a one-sided view of the Cyprus issue. In referring to the number of foreigners—mainly Turks—in northern Cyprus, the hon. Gentleman refuses to accept that, according to British figures, 35,000 foreigners now live in southern Cyprus. He mentions the presence of Turkish troops in northern Cyprus, but he refuses to condemn the presence of Greek mainland troops in southern Cyprus.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked whether the Turkish Cypriots should be able to veto Cyprus's membership of the European Union. However, the United Kingdom has always agreed, through the Zurich and London agreements, that the Turkish Cypriots should have a veto over the system of government in Cyprus and its membership of any international organisations. The Zurich and London agreements make it clear that Cyprus cannot join any organisation unless Greece and Turkey are also members. Even when the sovereign state of Cyprus existed—before the Greek coup—we accepted the principle that the Turkish Cypriots could exercise a veto over the future of that island. The hon. Gentleman now rejects the terms accepted by British Governments of both political persuasions for a settlement in Cyprus.
I conclude by raising another serious point, which the previous speakers failed to mention. The Greek Cypriots have decided to purchase S300 missiles from Russia and to place them in military bases in the south of Cyprus. That is a most serious development, which has major implications for peace on the island of Cyprus and for


relations between Greece and Turkey. The development must concern other members of NATO and western powers generally.
I ask the Minister to confirm whether the United Kingdom has made any representations about the proposed establishment of those missiles in southern Cyprus. Have we complained about that move? Do we accept that it is contrary to the Zurich and London agreements regarding the militarisation of any part of Cyprus? If representations have been made, what form have they taken?

Mr. Andrew Love: I add my congratulations to those offered to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on securing this debate on our return from the summer recess. As I sponsored the first debate on the subject this Session, I shall be brief.
The world moves on, but the division of Cyprus remains. After 23 years of failure, the capacity of the international community to remedy the injustice done to the people of Cyprus is at stake. I have just returned from a visit to the island—my third in as many years—during which, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I went to the green line which separates the two communities. I saw for myself the tragedy of Cyprus's continuing division. People cannot return to their homes and villages, community members are separated from their families and friends, and the issue of the missing relatives remains.
Presidential elections on the island are due to take place in February next year. Uncertainty about their outcome has inevitably delayed direct negotiations between the two communities, but it should not prevent their representatives or those of the international community from preparing the ground for the resumption of talks early next year.
Although the talks earlier this year failed to move the process forward, I am pleased to see that President Clerides and Mr. Denktas have continued to meet in Cyprus. Those meetings have raised hopes that several confidence-building measures will be addressed. The question of the fate of the missing on both sides—the innocent victims of the military invasion—may finally be laid to rest, enabling families and friends to come to terms with their loss.
The dialogue between the two leaders has also encompassed discussion of various security concerns and the mounting tensions in the region. That is a direct consequence both of the division of the island and of the continuing presence of foreign troops to underpin it. That division creates instability, which leads to escalating tension and friction, not only in Cyprus but between Greece and Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean. Because of that tension, we are beginning to see the unravelling of the Madrid agreement between those two countries, so patiently put together earlier this year with the help of the Americans. Whether it be the cat and mouse game currently played out in the skies over Cyprus, including the buzzing of the Greek Defence Minister on a recent trip to the island, or the threat and counter-threat surrounding missiles and troop deployments, the problem remains essentially the same. It was summed up succinctly by a western diplomat:

What one side sees as security is interpreted as insecurity by the other side.
Although I accept that the current dialogue is unlikely to address any of the fundamental issues—that can happen only when proper negotiations resume—it is to be hoped that they can foster at least a better atmosphere in Cyprus and, more optimistically, perhaps an agreement that will help to reduce tensions.
It is, of course, to the resumption of UN-sponsored negotiations that we must look for a resolution, and to the European Community and the negotiations of Cyprus's accession. Britain assumes the presidency in January next year and will be in the chair when they commence. In that regard, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his reaffirmation during yesterday's Foreign and Commonwealth questions that the Government will continue to support its application for membership on its merits and without preconditions.
Britain must also help to make the case for membership. It will benefit both communities, not only by providing an impetus to both economies and ending the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, but, perhaps most important, by helping to guarantee the security of all Cypriots, which remains by far the most difficult issue to resolve. Britain must also honour its obligations. We are uniquely placed, because of our historic role in the island, as a member of the Security Council of the UN, and as a guarantor power of the security of the island. Therefore, we must leave no stone unturned in our efforts as a country to work both with the community and at the United Nations for a resumption of meaningful negotiations. We owe that commitment to the people of Cyprus.

Mr. David Heath: Time is extremely short, so I shall be brief. I know that there are powerful advocates on both sides of the House who have greater expertise on the subject than me. My only plea is that their advocacy of a proper settlement in Cyprus should recognise the needs of both communities on the island and recognise that each community has genuine fears and concerns about the attitude of the other, and the other countries that are involved in the area.
When we last debated this matter, we were looking forward to the United Nations mediation and to the activities of Mr. Cordovez. We were hoping that that would bring about a fundamental change in the position. Sadly, that has not yet happened, but we must still be hopeful that it will happen in the near future and that the United Nations mediation will bear fruit. That has not been helped by the noises off and within. Many hon. Members have referred to sabre rattling, which has come from a number of quarters, whether it is the overflying of military aircraft, the purchase of missiles or the threats of veto and counter-veto, through which external forces are seeking to apply pressure, or whether it is the noises from within, from both communities—principally Mr. Denktas in this case—in threatening to obstruct Cyprus's accession, which seems very much to be in its interest.
The Government's position was clearly stated in the debate in June. We were asked to support a comprehensive political settlement in Cyprus, establishing a bizonal, bicorrununal federation comprising two politically equal communities. That must, of course,


remain the case. All parts of the House must support that view. It is my contention that the British position must change a little. Until now, we have, quite properly, supported the United Nations in its efforts, but we are moving on to the British presidency. The talks may or may not be floundering, and the British position as a guarantor nation must come to the front.
Cyprus—particularly northern Cyprus—would benefit from accession to the EU. I believe that the EU would also benefit, because of the importance of Cyprus in strategic and commercial terms in the eastern Mediterranean. During its presidency, the British Government must seek to unravel the complications that are undoubtedly there. There may be legal impediments. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) brushed aside the legal arguments attached to the 1960 treaty; nevertheless, we need sensible answers to the question whether the treaty obligations have been repudiated. We need sensible answers on Turkey's position. We would all welcome, of course, Turkey's eventual accession to the EU, but we all know that there are very strong reasons why it has not yet shown itself to be an appropriate member of that family of nations. We must be clear that outside interests cannot veto the entry of Cyprus to the EU. Nor should outside interests seek to use accession to apply pressure elsewhere in the process, therefore interfering with the prospects of other countries seeking to accede.
This is a diplomatic tightrope. I do not envy the Minister in this respect, but I believe that Britain now has to give a clear lead. I ask the Minister simply to give some indication of where Britain intends to lead in the matter of Cyprus during the British presidency—what was Britain's position at Mondorf-le-Bains, for example?—how the British Government were able to react to the demands of the other Foreign Ministers at that meeting, and how they see Cyprus's application moving forward, which is something that I believe every hon. Member earnestly wishes to happen.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on bringing this debate to the House today. The House is well aware of his long-standing interest in and knowledge of Cyprus, and he displayed his usual insight and clarity in marshalling his arguments. Despite the rather unpleasant lashing that he received from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), it was right that he should bring his recent experiences to the House so that it might be better informed.
I shall make a short speech and make three points from the view of Her Majesty's Opposition. First, we will, of course, continue to support the important work done by Sir David Hannay, who was appointed by the previous Government in May 1996. We pay tribute to his painstaking work and to the work of all the officials from the United Nations, the European Union and the United States who are involved in seeking a solution to this vexing question. We recognise that a solution lies in the bizonal, bicommunal federation, but it is disappointing that, although the leaders of both communities can agree on the end results, they are not yet able to agree on any steps towards that objective. We hope that they will.
Secondly, we support strongly the application by the Government of Cyprus for accession to the European Union. We very much hope that it will be a catalyst for

settlement of this long-standing difficulty. It has certainly been a catalyst for enhanced debate and activity. We make it clear that we are strongly of the view that there is no Turkish veto over the accession.
We are sure that the process of membership of the European Union will be of great benefit to everyone on the island. It is clear that membership would be of enormous significance to foreign investment and to the restoration of full international links. It would provide a significant boost to the tourism sector. Substantial cohesion payments would be available, and that would be of no small benefit to the people on the island.
We welcome the commencement of accession talks in the next few months. We shall do all that we can to support them. We see the British presidency of the EU as an opportunity for the debate to be moved forward helpfully and constructively.
We repeat the call on the leaders of the Government of Cyprus and on Turkish Cypriots to make a fresh effort to find a solution on behalf of all the people. We, the Opposition, want to make it clear that we support any reasonable initiative that is taken by the new Government of the United Kingdom to bring about peace and stability in the region.
I have one simple question for the Minister—I am sure that it will not trouble him greatly. Is he able to clarify whether it remains Government policy to support the rotating presidency, which, when stated earlier in the year, caused some difficulty with the Government of Cyprus? Perhaps the Minister will make his policy on that issue clear.
I wish to conclude where I started, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath on his important speech.

Mr. Maginnis: It is unfortunate that time has permitted only one Member to speak from a different point of view. I am grateful, of course, to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Will he clarify whether he still recognises that the Turkish Cypriots, under the 1960 constitution, have a veto on the position of Cyprus vis-a-vis accession to the European Union?

Mr. Streeter: I thought that I made the position clear earlier. We do not see Turkey—

Mr. Maginnis: No; Turkish Cypriots, not Turkey.

Mr. Streeter: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.
It is important that all points of view are heard in the House and—

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Streeter: I shall not give way again because time is so short.
In debating this issue, it is important that all points of view are heard in the House, but it is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath was lashed in an unpleasant way for bringing his recent experience to the House and informing our debate.
Finally, we must all wish all of those involved in an important process every success in reaching a lasting and peaceful solution.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I, too, am mindful of the time. I shall not be able to take up all the points raised in the debate in my reply, but I shall be happy to deal in other ways with any points that I miss.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on raising the debate. It is clear that the issue is of great interest to the House, to our nation and to the people of Cyprus.
I thank the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for his supportive remarks on the nature of a future constitution for Cyprus and on European Union accession. I thank him also for his remark that the Opposition will support any reasonable initiative that is taken by the Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all our initiatives are reasonable and that he will have many from which to choose in the months ahead.
As for the rotating presidency, I perceive no change in policy. The future constitution should principally concern the main participants, but obviously the guarantors and others have a view. If a mutual agreement were reached of such a nature that it caused major difficulties elsewhere, the Government would express their concerns. I do not envisage any particular problem in that area.
We had a wide debate on Cyprus in June and not a great deal has changed since then. Talks have taken place, of course, on two occasions during the summer. It is disappointing that more progress was not made for they provided an excellent opportunity for progress. At least the parties still recognise that there is a need for them to have a dialogue. I hope that that recognition will carry forward through the winter beyond the elections in southern Cyprus in February so that we can get down to the hard work that will ensue in the early months of next year.
I am happy to announce that, during the British presidency, Sir David Hannay will be the presidency representative on these matters as well as our own special representative.
During my recent visit to Turkey, in my talks with the Greek Government and during my visit to Mondorfle-Bains over the weekend I expressed the view—I do not have time to go into the details—that the people of Cyprus can all gain if there is a solution to the current divide and the current difficulties. Factors that cause tension and put obstacles in the way of seeking peace and securing a settlement must be condemned.
I have made it clear to the Turkish Government that the British Government support Turkey's inclusion in the European conference for reasons that were referred to partially during Question Time yesterday. We have said to the Turkish Government that, if they want to be part of the European family, we expect a constructive approach from Turkey on a wide range of issues, including

relationships with Greece and the influence that they, the Turkish Government, can bring to bear on the northern part of Cyprus.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Henderson: I am not giving way because I do not have time to do so.
Similarly, I have said to the Greek Government that we want them to do what they can to persuade the people in southern Cyprus that they, the people, must do what they can to reduce tension. We have said that we do not think it helpful to have any build-up of any military hardware on the island of Cyprus, including missiles, which it is proposed to operate from the southern part of the island.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to overflights of the southern base areas. I can confirm that air clearance is normally required for such overflights. A small number of overflights occurred during recent exercises without such permission being given. We reminded the Cypriot Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the requirement.
There has been a much more general demarche adopted by the British Government involving all the parties that have been involved in increasing military tension in the area. It is time that that stopped. The people of the whole of Cyprus must learn that the world moves on. If the peoples of eastern and central Europe and of South Africa and elsewhere can respond to a new world situation, surely the people of the whole of the island of Cyprus can respond to that new situation.
One of the necessary responses is to de-escalate military involvement. We have complained in specific terms to both the Government of the southern part of Cyprus and to those who are in control in the north. We have told them that we take exception to the dangerous military exercises that are taking place. We have expressed the same view to the Turkish and Greek Governments, who have provided the forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was right to talk about the future. Where do we go from here? There are no easy answers. It would help if the House did not bicker about the past and instead looked to the future, as that approach would help in Cyprus. We must have a more positive attitude. The EU accession talks will be driven forward by the British presidency as fast as is appropriate in relation to the other accession talks that are taking place. We desperately want to see success in the peace talks next spring. I commend Sir David Hannay, our special representative, for his hard work and dedication in pursuing that end.
At the end of the day, it is the parties in Cyprus who must bring peace. We know that a bizonal, bicommunal approach to the constitution can work, and humanitarian measures can be taken in the interim. De-manning of the green line, dealing with the missing persons issue and expansion of contacts, including cultural, social and sporting contacts, can happen on the way to a peace settlement. Ultimately, the parties must recognise that the big prize is peace, prosperity and stability for all, and for that they must work out a common solution with which they can all live.

Sport Hunting

11 am

Dr. Ian Gibson: The purpose of my speech is not to detract from the Second Reading on 28 November of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster): quite the opposite.
I first began to think about the problems of sport hunting when I was taken by an Anglia Television crew to a fox hunt in Essex last Christmas. I found the whole day rather boring; there was not a fox in sight. The day came and went without me understanding why people commit themselves to this activity. The only sad event that occurred was a young rider falling off her horse, and that was about it. I was subjected to many of the arguments on the need for hunting. We were all courteously treated and there was no attempt to restrict our movements.
I determined to investigate this issue from a certain angle. My profession has taught me that scientific experimentation and analysis, as well as adding new dimensions to complex matters, can chase away prejudice, so it was to the scientific facts that I turned. My aim today is to ensure that recent scientific studies are discussed and that we use good science to cut through the emotion and nonsense that often surrounds this issue.
Research on sport hunting, which is often undertaken in difficult circumstances, has allowed organisations to make informed decisions on sport hunting, such as to ban it on their land as the National Trust announced earlier this year. That is truly an example of facts promoting political action.
Research has also made it possible to answer questions on the biological effects of hunting; specifically to question the contention that there is a dire need to restrict animal populations by this or any other method. Most hunters agree that hunting with hounds has little effect on hare, deer or fox numbers. I have always found it surprising that some animals are seen as pests or vermin, whereas othersmdash;or even sometimes the same animals—evoke human emotion, concern and passion. I note the recent study by the university of Bristol that was quoted in yesterday's The Guardian, which questions whether the fox is a pest.
Whether in biotechnology, with its immense potential for job and product creation, or in the field that encompasses ethology, biodiversity, management and conservation of wildlife, multifactorial components interact in complex ways that are often difficult to unravel and quantify. There is no common currency—a topical subject this week—with which to equate units of suffering, units of hedgerow, units of rural employment, units of cultural heritage and units of rural infrastructure. Hon. Members will instantly recognise those as major factors referred to in debates on hunting.
It is important to recognise that even after the science is applied and assessed, it is not the role of the scientist exclusively to apply ethical judgments. That is by no means to concede or imply that scientists are dispassionate, cold people—quite the opposite in my experience—who should not participate in such ethical debates and thereby fashion political judgment.
A wider debate is required, whether it is to do with poor old Dolly the sheep or with sport hunting. I hope that the matter is resolved democratically later this year

through the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. Ultimately, a judgment must emerge from the whole equation and the scientific impact is essential if that is to happen. What scientific evidence has emerged, what is needed and how does it help us to judge the impact of hunting on the various factors at issue?
Hunting as a form of exploitation of wildlife may relate to conservation issues. Trophy hunting of big cats or the ivory harvest of elephants may affect global diversity, national economics and the recreational and employment profiles of a large segment of many societies. Other hunting issues may seem parochial in comparison but still involve a complex interplay between similar factors.
Scientific methodology, technique and analysis can be applied to the issues involved in our interaction with other natural creatures, be they foxes, hounds, hares, deer or mink. The anti-science lobby, which is fairly prevalent in this country, tells us that any scientific conclusion is merely common sense or that scientists never agree so their results should be disregarded and we should not bother about any of the evidence that is presented. That fails to recognise the immense socio-economic advances that have accrued since the discovery of DNA, electrons and the second law of thermodynamics. Such discoveries not only address issues of wealth creation, but can ensure an improvement in the quality of life and in our understanding of the environment. The intellectual and financial wealth created by such discoveries is incontestable and it ill behoves any Minister to deny the value of research.
How can science resolve some of the current problems in sport hunting? First, it can break down the prevalent mythology. A recent publication from the university of Durham said:
The mink's reputation as a pest lends considerable support to those who now hunt it with hounds along Britain's rivers. Conservationists fear, however, that the continuation of this activity, albeit directed towards a different species, seriously disturbs any otters which remain in the areas around.
So the simple branding of an organism as a pest fails to examine the whole ecosphere and the effects on other organisms in that environment.
Like Professor Bateson's report on stag hunting for the National Trust, scientific research has reinforced what the anti-hunt lobby had suspected all along: that hunting deer with hounds leads to unacceptable cruelty and suffering. Only last week, DNA profiling or fingerprinting resulted in four men being convicted of badger digging offences. Science showed its worth in that area and forensic diagnosis is very much part of our way of life in other activities. We cannot cherry-pick the science just to get our beliefs across: we must consider the whole dimension.
We can address issues of cruelty and pain scientifically. Such arguments are a prominent feature of the hunting debate. Pain or biotechnical trauma has been measured in the hunting of red deer. The National Trust recently commissioned a significant report by Professor Patrick Bateson and Elizabeth Bradshaw of King's college Cambridge, who were studying the effect of hunting on red deer in Exmoor and the Quantocks.
The study involved taking blood samples from deer that had been chased by hounds and then shot. The deer had run an average of 20 km over three hours. The research showed clearly that cortisol levels—it is acknowledged across the scientific compass that this hormone is released


under stress—blood sugar and lactate levels rose as oxygen levels fell due to overworked muscles. Red blood cells broke down and released haemoglobin, and muscle-based enzymes leaked into the blood.
Cortisol levels were 10 times higher in deer chased by hounds than in animals shot by stalkers. Blood lactate levels reached peak levels after 5 km of chase, then dropped as lactate was used to fuel muscular activity. The consequence was that after 15 km to 30 km, energy stores in the deer were completely depleted. That was described by many scientists as an extraordinary and unexpected finding. Another incidental observation was that blood plasma in the deer contained haemoglobin within a few kilometres of the start of the chase.
We must identify and calibrate factors that are amenable to scientific analysis for each situation. We are unlikely to reach ethical agreements from this evidence alone, but it allows us to quantify and assess stress levels and relate that to cruelty claims.
As we expect in science, several attempts have been made to discredit Bateson's work, but it has been peer reviewed and stood the test of conference scrutiny. Therefore, it can truly be described as pioneering, illustrative and conclusive at this stage.

Mr. James Paice: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the scientific way in which he is dealing with the issue. I do not claim to be a scientist, but it strikes me that the Bateson report is based entirely on the physical aspect of stress that he has just described so accurately. Does anything in the report suggest that that physical stress manifests itself as mental distress? It seems to me, as a layman, that that is the key aspect of an animal's pain.

Dr. Gibson: It is difficult to answer that question without the evidence provided by measurements involving brain cells and how they function, but I note in today's papers claims that cortisone levels relate to malfunctioning of the brain. Although Bateson did not carry out such measurements, I think that most scientists and medics would look for behavioural effects and effects on the brains of the deer. Certainly there are muscular effects, in that the deer become exhausted when running.
When reading the vast body of literature about hunting—we must admit that there is a sporting element in all such activity, whether it be fox hunting, hare coursing or red deer hunting—I have been struck by the quasi-scientific propaganda and dogma associated with the issues and by the nebulous phrases that are employed. Mythology and perceptions abound. Scientific investigations can cut through all that and provide qualitative and quantitative data, thereby giving a basis for political decision making.
We must get rid of our anthropomorphic attitude to animals. We have consciences and know right from wrong; animals do not. It is ludicrous to describe the fox—as some hunters have—as a cruel killer that kills for fun. Such language muddies the arguments. The notion that the kill is quick, lasting a matter of seconds, does not always stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, fox and deer hunts can involve chases lasting hours.
What other research has been conducted and what questions have been asked? Some questions relate to the organisation, activity patterns and modus operandi of

hunting. Asking and investigating such questions involves assessing the scale of hunting and its role in rural socio-economic infrastructures. Some interesting answers are contained in in-depth studies of fox hunting by Doctors MacDonald and Johnstone of Oxford university, which are widely renowned. Among their many conclusions was the finding that the number of participants did not vary significantly from one region to another. About 80 people would participate in a typical hunt. Another finding was that the area covered by the hunt varied from larger areas in the south and midlands to smaller areas in the north and Wales. Cub hunting occurred on an average of 25 days per season and hunting proper on an average of 70.
The researchers went on to ask what role hunting played in the population dynamics of any species—in this instance the fox—what impact it had on countryside management; what and who were the interest groups; how they viewed the hunted and how they dealt with scientific factors when they emerged. To assess the population dynamics, mortality and movement of foxes and to establish the size of the populations and the different habitats, the researchers collected figures that showed the national average annual rate of fox kills by hunts for the past three decades. A slight upward trend emerged in the more recent data, especially in the south.
Consistent differences were recorded in the number of foxes found by hunts in different habitats: for example, it was claimed that there were more in hilly landscapes. Most important, thorough analysis of fox mortality using various methods showed, in summary, how little was due to the hunts. MacDonald's seminal work concludes:
As a method of protecting game birds, arguably the main motive for fox control, fox hunting is not sufficient. It seems similarly unlikely to offer protection for lambs.
It also states that
outside perhaps the context of upland sheep farming areas, fox hunting should be thought to be more of a sport than as a method of fox control.
MacDonald's work has been published and internationally acknowledged.
A more recent biological study from the university of Bristol concludes:
Foxes do not warrant their reputation as major pests of agriculture.
Losses of lambs, piglets and poultry are insignificant relative to other causes of deaths. Greater improvements in lamb survival can be made by improving husbandry rather than by fox control.
I shall now deal with the impact of sport hunting on the countryside. A recent letter in the Eastern Daily Press highlighted a view in Norfolk that might have been justified until recently, but will not necessarily last for, ever. The author wrote:
My late father came to this farm in 1944. On 250 acres there are today 12 arable fields, 10 small pasture fields, 3 woods, 11 spinneys, 4 ponds and a large number of hedges, banks and ditches".
The author went on to say that, had her father not been a hunting and shooting enthusiast, he would have removed them in the 1950s, when farmers were offered incentives to increase the productivity of their land. She felt that, without country sports, there would be seven ordinary arable fields, tiny areas of marsh and a few roadside banks.
Whether country sports will continue to be a major factor in countryside conservation remains to be seen. As MacDonald says, in the early 1980s reports from


fox-hunting farmers suggested that they were more inclined than others to retain hedgerows, but he goes on to say that hunting is not the only plausible motive for fostering hedgerows. In fact, he sees it as being destined to occupy a descending rank in the hierarchy of factors and argument currently fostering conservation.

Mr. James Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the comments of none other than Dr. David Bellamy? He has said:
While we have hunting, shooting and fishing interests in this country, we will have better landscape management. Without these interests, Britain would become a prairie landscape.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept those comments?

Dr. Gibson: David Bellamy has not done the work that MacDonald has done, but that is not to say that he might not prove to be right in the long term. As I admitted earlier, scientists tend to argue, but I think that at present most people would go along with MacDonald's assessment.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Scientists may indeed argue, but there can be no argument with farmers in my constituency who have told me that they are putting hedges in and preserving them because they enjoy the rural sports, specifically hunting, that those hedges enhance. Scientists may argue, but I can promise that in Leicestershire those hedges are there because people want to jump them—and the same applies to coverts.

Dr. Gibson: I would have said exactly the opposite, and I would have guessed that the hon. Gentleman would too. There is clearly argument among farmers. That is why I think that conservation issues will be based on factors other than hunting.
MacDonald made clear points about conservation issues. Issues of cruelty and the attendant moral questions are difficult to measure, but are of concern to many people. Bateson has attempted to quantify them. Balancing pain against benefits has now become a major issue and degrees of suffering may become quantifiable in different animals as scientific research and methodology develop.
At the end of the scientific analyses, it can be said that we are now in a position to talk about pain threshold measurements and stress levels in animals. From population studies, we can assess the effect of hunting, number distribution and the structure of the population. The debate has now moved to issues of morality and recreation and away from the classic issues of tradition and employment.

Mr. David Prior: Has Professor Bateson done any work comparing the cruelty involved when a fox dies a natural death—often from starvation or disease—with the pain that it might suffer from a hunt?

Dr. Gibson: He has not done any work on that, but he has asked how such effects should be measured. Foxes do die naturally and it might be interesting to make the comparison. No one is saying that all the research that could be done has been done.
Because of the scientific movements and discoveries that have been made, many aspects of hunting could disappear. The sport might even be conducted without the

involvement of a live animal. There is a thought. Other viable substitutes have been suggested. All that it would take is zeal and ingenuity in the consideration of sporting aspects. As has been said elsewhere, as we head towards the millennium, is it not time to think the unthinkable?
I have attempted to expose and measure factors that inform and help the making of a judgment about hunting. As different people put different values on each relevant factor, and as the arguments of population control and farmland conservation seem to be, or will become, independent of hunting, at least in the fox hunting debate, the argument returns to the moral propriety of recreation when suffering is involved against tradition and employment.
The role of good science should not be underestimated and we have highlighted some areas that might be taken up. With it, we can reconsider the traditional arguments to justify sport hunting, but I want to conclude on a positive note: the scientific evidence points us absolutely in the direction of reducing the chasing of animals for sport and of supporting the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to end hunting with hounds, which is to be discussed in November.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate because of the importance of hunting in my constituency. It is important for two reasons: environmental conservation and employment. This debate is about not sport, but the rural economy. Many of the people who support a ban on hunting, particularly Labour Members, live, work and represent urban constituencies and do not understand countryside issues. Urban attitudes often conflict with rural traditions. I invite all hon. Members who represent urban seats to come to the countryside to see what is being done by way of rural conservation and how people earn their living.
What would be the consequence of a ban on hunting being approved by the House? A survey carried out by the Campaign for Hunting in 1996 reported the vital role that hunts play in the British countryside by maintaining walls, hedges and woodlands. For example, hunts are responsible for the management of more than 15,000 acres of woodland for wildlife. Recently, the New Scientist concluded that
fox hunting has helped shape the British landscape. Areas where it is common often have more hedgerows and thickets which benefit other wildlife beside the fox. These would disappear if hunting were banned.
In June, the National Farmers Union council issued a statement noting that it would
oppose any change in the law which would result in any reduction in the range of methods currently available to control agricultural pests effectively. This would include the use of dogs to control foxes.
Going back as far as 1993, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food noted that
foxes can cause serious problems for individual farmers, and the Ministry therefore considers that foxes do need to be controlled to minimise lamb losses. Where control is necessary, farmers should be free to carry this out using effective and humane methods, and it is useful to be able to employ a range of techniques.
It is not an issue simply of fox hunting. That is the hook to hang the issue of the countryside on. There may be a case to ensure that hunts conform to modern welfare


standards and for the establishment of a supervisory body, but if we consider the economic facts, any change in field sports does not stack up.
There are 385 registered packs of hounds, 228,000 participants, hunting or following, and 15,300 people are employed by hunts or in related trades. The total associated expenditure for the pastime is £176 million a year; 400,000 farm animal carcases are disposed of by hunt kennel staff to feed hounds, either at no cost or at a much reduced rate; and 5,700 hectares of woodland are managed by hunts.
If there were changes in field sports and, in particular, if hunting were banned, we could expect nearly 9,000 people to lose their jobs. A total of £120 million of turnover in associated trades would disappear and 400,000 farm animal carcases would have to be disposed of at farmers' or taxpayers' expense. The 5,700 hectares of woodland would have to be managed differently or from another purse. In such a rural economy, no changes are viable.
If I could be persuaded that any future legislation to ban hunting would not cost jobs in my constituency and that we could protect and conserve the countryside better, I would examine it carefully. Nationally, 15,000 people are directly employed in hunts and in related trades. If field sports were banned, riding and livery stables, saddlers and farriers would have little work in winter.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that only 9 per cent. of horses are used in hunting? My wife has had a horse for about 25 years and I have yet to meet a poor farrier.

Mr. Fraser: I will come on to the percentage and who hunts later. I hear the point.
Feed merchants, outfitters and vets would also be badly affected.
Where would it end? The issue of country sports comes down to protecting jobs and rural communities, who rely on those pastimes for their income. My concern must be for people who live and work in my constituency. I do not hunt, but I know and represent many people who do. Hunting is not an elitist sport. People involved with country sports come from all walks of life.
In Dorset, many local stables and livery stables depend on hunting, as do saddlers, horse feed suppliers and horsebox engineers, particularly in the winter months. Many of them were among the 500 people from the South Dorset hunt area who went to the Hyde park countryside rally, which was attended by 120,000 people—the biggest demonstration in London for generations. They went because they felt that their livelihoods were at risk and to show their support for country sports.
Three hunts—the South Dorset Foxhounds, the Purbeck Beagles and the Ytene Mink Hounds—hunt in my constituency. Two of their masters live in my constituency. On Monday, the South Dorset hunt was on Rempstone heath, near Corfe castle, and supporters included pensioners and children.
None of those hunts could operate without the permission of local farmers. Indeed, most of the subscribers to the South Dorset hunt are farmers, their

wives and children. They look to the hunt to control and disperse foxes. Any future legislation to ban field sport would criminalise those decent, law-abiding people. In years to come, would that prove to be the thin end of the wedge? Will Bills be introduced that criminalise fishermen and people who shoot?
It is also an issue of civil liberties. A ban on hunting would be an infringement of people's freedom to choose how they live their lives. In a civilised society, tolerance is shown to minorities. We accept that we must listen to and respect views that we do not necessarily personally agree with. People live and work in the countryside and they are now a minority. Parliament has a responsibility to protect the rights of such minorities.
I do not want conflict between the town and the country or even a divided nation, but people who favour a ban on hunting probably do not appreciate that it would not save a single life of a quarry species. Farmers would use other methods to control foxes. They would shoot, snare or trap them. Hunting is, however, the only selective method of controlling pest species. It promotes a healthy population by removing old, sick and injured animals.
Other types of hunting, particularly drag hunting, are not a suitable alternative. The Masters of Draghounds Association has endorsed that view. Drag hunting provides no service to farmers in terms of managing the fox population and enhancing wildlife habitats, hedges and walls. It would not safeguard jobs.
The impact of sport hunting and the proposed legislation on banning hunting, if passed, would have a profound effect on countryside conservation and, above all, on employment in the countryside. We must consider carefully any proposed legislation that comes before the House. If it threatens employment and people's livelihoods, it must be resisted.
People who seek a ban on hunting do the countryside a great disservice. They seek to hang the future and stability of rural life on one issue: hunting. They must not prevail.

Mr. Martin Salter: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for his measured speech, which relied on science rather than prejudice. That is a welcome change from some of the arguments that we have heard in the hunting debate. I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) that it is a grave mistake to assume that Labour Members are ignorant urbanites. I am pleased to say that many Labour Members represent rural communities—one could hardly describe Forest of Dean as urban.

Mr. Fraser: I did not say that. I said that those who live and work in and represent urban constituencies should come to the countryside to see how it is worked and managed and how people there earn their livelihoods. What I said does not detract from the fact that some people are ignorant of that.

Mr. Salter: Likewise, it does not detract from the fact that people will trot out any argument to justify their prejudice. I repeat that it would be a grave mistake to assume that Labour Members are ignorant urbanites who


have no understanding of how the countryside works; my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) does not exactly represent an urban constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and I are keen anglers; we have spent many years fishing in the countryside and understand country sports. The argument is trotted out that this is the thin end of the wedge, but how is it that recent polls by the Angler's Mail and the Angling Times show that coarse fishermen are opposed to hunting with hounds in the same proportion as the general public? The argument about fishermen is facetious and has no factual basis.

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salter: Opposition Members seem to be getting aerated.

Mr. Robathan: I do not hunt but I occasionally fish. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not a keen fisherman. In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) spoke about the science of the matter and finally dealt with its morality. Is it moral because you enjoy catching creatures with a hook in their mouths? That question must go hand in hand with whether it is moral to chase creatures. Perhaps you could explain that dichotomy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman uses the word you. Could he please use the correct terminology?

Mr. Robathan: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Salter: The debate is about the sport of hunting: it is not about fishing. Scientific data draw a clear distinction between the ability of fish and other cold-blooded creatures to feel pain and the reactions and the mechanisms that trigger pain and stress in warm-blooded mammals such as deer and foxes. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North nods assent; that gives me some comfort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole spoke about the "glorious" demonstration. It is amusing to find Conservatives placing such reliance on a mass demonstration. Many Labour Members demonstrated in support of the miners. Did that stop the previous Administration destroying mining communities? It is interesting to note that a measure seems to be immoral if it affects a small number of jobs in a rural environment. Were not some of the previous Government's policies immoral, given the damage that they caused to employment in mining communities and elsewhere?

Mr. Gray: The point about the rally on 10 May is that it was by far the largest popular rally of any kind in the history of rallies. It was two or three times the size of the miners' rally and larger than the poll tax rally. It was the largest popular rally on any subject ever known in this country. That is why it was a significant expression of public opinion.

Mr. Salter: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not been on as many demonstrations as many of us on Labour Benches. I

suggest that he did not participate in demonstrations against the poll tax or, if I dare mention it in the new Labour climate, some of the well-attended demonstrations in support of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He is factually inaccurate. I welcome him to a future demonstration.

Mr. Fraser: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to call us his hon. Friends. We have noted that with great gratitude. The Hyde park rally was attended by people from across the political spectrum and a Labour Baroness was a keynote speaker at the event. It was not partisan but an all-party matter. The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts.

Mr. Salter: I shall refer to Conservative Members who opposed the poll tax as hon. Friends—and can pray in aid many examples in that respect.
I shall return to the subject of the debate. I made hunting an issue in my election campaign. My constituency contains urban and rural areas with outlying villages. As a fisherman in Berkshire, I witnessed at first hand the brutality and depravity of a fox hunt kill. I have seen hunts dig out a fox that had been run to ground and throw it to a pack of hounds. I am now assured that such things do not happen, but I do not believe it.
I had the privilege of launching the campaign of my hon. Friend the Minister for Worcester in Reading last month and noted the interesting behaviour of the pro-hunting lobby, which engaged in heckling, jeering and jostling. However, that is the stuff of politics and I can handle it. There is an attempt to make the argument country versus town. I took up the challenge issued by the countryside movement, the pro-hunting lobby, to attend a fox hunt. I had seen hunts anyway but I was happy to accept the challenge. I am still waiting for an invitation. People do not want us to see what goes on at the end of a fox hunt. They do not want us to know how barbaric and out of place is fox hunting in modern Britain.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salter: No, I shall not.
A gamekeeper from rural Berkshire signed our petition before 1 May. I said to him, "I am pleased to see a gamekeeper signing the petition. As a rural person whose job depends on the countryside, why do you support the campaign against fox hunting?" He said, "Martin, hunts will often protect areas for foxes to breed so that they have a quarry to hunt." That response drives a coach and horses through the argument that fox hunting has anything to do with conservation or with helping farmers.

Mr. Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salter: No, because I am about to conclude.
The gamekeeper also said, "If you want to put down a fox you can shoot it. We are professionals who rarely miss and we know our job. That is the humane way to control foxes where they are pests." There is no scientific justification for the continuation of the sport of hunting with hounds. There are perfectly viable alternatives such as drag hunting. It is merely a question of satisfying the blood lust of a minority and it is time to call an end to it. I shall support the Bill on 28 November.

Mr. James Gray: The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) says that he has never received an invitation to attend a fox hunt to see what happens. I invite him to join me on Saturday 8 November at the hunt of the Royal Artillery fox hounds on Salisbury plain. I shall be delighted to see that he follows the hunt in a Land-Rover to see precisely what goes on. I hope to see him on Saturday week at 11 o'clock at Shrewton Folly for that meet.
There are two sides to the debate. The first is why there should be fox hunting; the second, which is quite a distinct argument, is why we should not ban it. As they are entirely separate issues, I shall deal with them in turn. The first reason for hunting is its utility. Anyone who has owned a chicken run, as I have, and has seen it strewn with the bodies of headless chickens, or who has seen a fox gnawing at a recently born calf or at the cow, or has seen live lambs half eaten by a fox, will know what vermin they are. In that context, foxes are precisely the same as rats and should be dealt with in the same way. We think nothing of hitting a rat on the head with a shovel in the farmyard and we should have the same feeling about dealing similarly with a fox.
I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who concentrated on the scientific aspects of fox hunting. I shall counter his speech by giving some of my own scientific knowledge. For military reasons, in 1985 the Ministry of Defence banned fox hunting on Salisbury plain because it was felt that it was too dangerous to gallop across the impact area and risk being blown up. In 1988—just three years later—farmers around Salisbury plain unanimously petitioned the Ministry of Defence to reintroduce fox hunting on the impact area because of the effect of the ban on their cows, sheep and chickens. The Ministry heeded that petition and allowed fox hunting to recommence. That is the only scientific evidence that I am aware of as to what happens when fox hunting is banned. It has a significant effect on agriculture.
Fox hunting is the only selective and scientific way in which to cull this particular pest. To suggest that that can be done by shooting simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how foxes live. They are nocturnal animals and trying to shoot them by night is not, to say the least, an easy matter. They live in deep undergrowth and down holes, so it is by no means easy to shoot them in the same way as stags are in the north of Scotland.

Mr. Salter: The hon. Gentleman says that foxes come out only at night, but does fox hunting take place at night? I have not noticed headlights galloping across the countryside. When I go fishing, I see a lot of foxes, certainly in the first three hours in the morning. It is possible to hunt foxes using a rifle during the hours of daylight.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that point. I look forward to showing the hon. Gentleman what we do on 8 November at Shrewton Folly when he joins me there.
Hounds are used precisely because foxes are to be found down holes and in deep undergrowth. When hounds are driven into deep undergrowth, the foxes are driven out. The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his lack of knowledge of what fox hunting is all about.
I was interested to see this week that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) now accepts that hounds are needed to flush out foxes and that he is talking about changing his private Member's Bill so that selected gangs of hounds will be used in one way or another to flush foxes out of undergrowth. He has changed his perspective on the way in which foxes can be killed.
In my first point—utility—I include mink hounds. Mink is an appalling pest in my constituency. It cannot be killed in any reasonable way apart from by the use of hounds. Here, I might get myself into trouble with the British Field Sports Society by going some way towards agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on the subject of stag hunting. I am not entirely convinced that the most efficient way of culling deer is by using hounds, but I await further scientific evidence on that point. As a Scot from the north of Scotland, where stag are culled perfectly adequately using rifles, I am not convinced that using hounds is the best method of culling stag. However, hounds are essential for culling mink and foxes.
My second point concerns the landscape. There is any amount of evidence that the English landscape is significantly formed by field sports in general. The New Scientist says:
hedgerow and thickets … would disappear if hunting were banned.
That is powerful evidence of the significant influence of fox hunting on the landscape.
My constituency has three packs of fox hounds—the VWH, the Beaufort and the Avon Vale—and we have at least one, perhaps two, beagle packs and a mink pack. The people who follow those packs make a huge contribution to the countryside in north Wiltshire. The place would not be the same without hunting.
The third reason for allowing fox hunting was referred to eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser): the economic benefit to the countryside. In my constituency, a significant number of people are employed as grooms, farriers and manufacturers of hunting kit, saddlery and so on. An enormous amount of money is pumped into north Wiltshire by commodity brokers and others who choose to live in London but hunt in my constituency. One need only visit the village of Sherston in my constituency to discover that hunting is almost certainly the most significant industry in that area.
Nationally, country sports generate 60,000 jobs. I have no reason to doubt that figure. The banning of fox hunting would have a huge impact on the United Kingdom's economy. Fox hunting contributes £3.8 billion to the economy.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I represent a rural constituency some 40 miles from top to bottom and almost as wide and I want to dispel some of the misinformation that has been given about employment. Conservative Members insist that the banning of fox hunting would have an impact on the rural economy, but a letter from a union representing employees in country areas dispels pro-hunters' claim that 160,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in field sports. It says that Department for Education and Employment figures for 1995 indicate that 116,000 people work full and part-time in a range of sporting activities, including football clubs, swimming pools and sports


arenas. One can only assume that those figures have been taken into account. The letter goes on to say that members of rural trade unions have come out firmly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Lady must resume her seat. The hon. Lady is a new Member, but interventions must be brief and hers was too long.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her useful, if not particularly well-informed, contribution to my speech.
I rest my case on the scientific evidence in the Cobham report. It concludes that country sports generate 60,160 full-time jobs and provide indirect, full-time employment to a further 30,809 people. The use of horses for hunting generates 9,000 jobs to the riding industry, 3,000 grooms' jobs in private establishments and 910 jobs in hunt service. Those figures are well established, but they are easily verifiable in a variety of ways.
In my constituency—I can speak with any degree of knowledge only about my constituency—field sports make a significant contribution. The suggestion that their loss could be made up by a switch to drag hunting simply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what fox hunting is all about. Drag hunting is an artificial sport that takes place in certain artificially produced areas and there is no possibility that farmers in my constituency would allow the 500 or 600 riders and followers we often see on a Saturday meet with the Beaufort to cross their land simply for fun. Farmers allow that to happen because they know the real benefit of fox hunting to their farms.
Those arguments go to why we should allow fox hunting but, almost as important, particularly under this new Government of freedom, allowing people to do what they wish—or so they say—is the argument for not banning it. In a sense, those are two different things. The libertarian argument is powerful. The temptation of most Governments is to legislate to allow the majority to do what they wish to do, but the important thing about being a socialist—I suspect that many Labour Members believe themselves still to be socialists—is looking after the minority; those people who are not necessarily represented by the majority. Those who take part in field sports are that minority and, as we saw on 10 July, a significant minority.

Mr. Martlew: In my area of Cumberland, as it was, cock fighting used to be very popular. Unfortunately, we used to have badger baiting as well. The same arguments that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward in favour of fox hunting could have been used in favour of cock fighting and badger baiting. What is the difference?

Mr. Gray: There is a significant difference between the ancient sports of fox hunting and badger baiting. First, many fewer people took part in badger baiting. We can now demonstrate that a significant number of people—I think I am right in saying 600,000—take part in field sports of all kinds. If one cannot prove that such sports are necessarily cruel, wishing to ban them has nothing to do with animal welfare or the economy, but is the result of class hatred and the failure to understand agriculture and the countryside.
I come finally to the way in which the Bill to be introduced on 28 November would undermine the fabric of the English countryside—the fabric of all that is

England. Hunting and shooting—and, indeed, fishing—are an integral part of the countryside in areas such as mine. They have been there for 1,000 years. A significant number—a majority—of the people there take part in them or support them. Such sports are a significant part of life in north Wiltshire, and Labour Members who would do away with them are motivated more by one type or another of class hatred and by political correctness than by an understanding of the countryside. As evidence of those motivations, even the hon. Member for Worcester has started to agree that it is perhaps necessary for hounds to flush foxes out of their covers. Moreover, Labour Members have started to agree that foot packs in the north of England may have to traverse hillsides.
The only interesting aspect of those two methods of flushing out foxes is that they are not fun. It is certainly right, however, to acknowledge that fox hunting is fun and that it is a great sport. Many of those who are opposed to fox hunting seem to be saying, "We do not believe that hunting hurts animals and we do not dislike the countryside, but we dislike those whom we perceive as being different from us having fun. If we can do away with their fun and their sport and have a go at those whom we perceive as red-coated, pompous colonels galloping round the countryside, it will somehow appeal to our entirely urban constituents. The people who voted for us do not like that sort of thing, whereas soppy sentimentality about the life of a fox does appeal to them."
Such a political instinct is unworthy and I very much hope that the House will stamp on its head in future debates the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill.

Dr. George Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his speech, which tried to get away from many of the traditions of this debate—in which people seem already to have reached their conclusions and then hunt for arguments to support them.
As a new hon. Member for a very rural constituency, I know that it is a gross caricature to describe discussion and debate in my constituency as occurring between town and country. As their new hon. Member, ex-hunters have written to me urging my support for a hunting ban, and farmers and agricultural workers have said that, on balance, they also support a ban. I have also received letters inviting me to attend a hunt—which I did—so that I could hear opposing views from other constituents.
Too often the hunting debate is distorted by caricaturing the extremes of the argument. I should like to make it clear that I do not think that my constituents who participate in and support hunting are a bloodthirsty lot, wishing to inflict cruelty in the countryside and gaining great pleasure in doing so. In the hours that I could spare to attend a hunt in my constituency, no fox was sighted and the event seemed to be much more of a social occasion than one organised to kill an animal. There was considerable enjoyment, however, for those who met socially and enjoyed some exercise.
People participating in that hunt were also not from any one economic class. Although there were members of the landed gentry, if they will excuse me for so labelling them, there were also agricultural workers who were there to have a bit of fun. Therefore, let us please—at least in the House—debate the matter without caricaturing all those on the other side of the argument as evil people.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, we have a responsibility to identify the key facts in trying to determine where the argument should lead. Although I have tried in discussions with my constituents to maintain as neutral a position as possible and to listen to both sides, I have discovered that—probably because of the depth of their emotional commitment, which is based largely on tradition and the life style to which they are accustomed—there are conflicting arguments among not those most keen for abolition but those who support the continuation of hunting. I have had to tell them that they cannot have the argument every way.
At the hunt that I attended, some people made it very clear that it would be a very bad day for foxes if a ban were imposed, because farmers would quickly shoot the lot and there would be no foxes left to hunt. They said that shooting foxes would be much more efficient than the relatively inefficient process of catching foxes with hounds, and that there would soon be no more foxes in my part of Norfolk. Conversely, two or three metres further on, I was approached by other hunt supporters who said that hunts were not only essential but the only reasonable way in which foxes can be properly controlled. They said that shooting would never control foxes. The balance of the argument must therefore rest on the side of those who say, as the scientific evidence seems to indicate, that control of the fox population is a secondary or tertiary consideration to that of the intent of the hunt.
It is very difficult to understand entirely the employment argument, and I suspect that there has been a mite of exaggeration in the case that has been made. The House, however, has a responsibility not simply to assume that there is no validity in an argument. I suspect that a hunting ban will cause some negative effects on employment. Those who are inclined to support the measure must take account of that fact, and I shall certainly attempt to ensure that the House considers it.
It seems a little misplaced, however, to place such emphasis on the effects of a hunting ban on employment when one considers the effects of other factors on countryside employment. In the 28 years that I have been in Norfolk, the number of people employed on a typical large estate has dropped by almost a factor of 10, and that has been the real change in countryside employment. There were once 28 or more employed on large estates, but now, because of modem farming techniques, only three or four are employed on such estates. I am much more anxious for the House and the Government to address employment issues in the rural economy by ensuring, for example, that there is a decent road structure for commerce.
Although I suspect that there will be some negative effects of a hunting ban, they are not sufficiently large to influence our judgment on the main issue, which we will eventually be debating. There should be more neutral analysis of the figures to determine the likely effects of a ban on the rural economy.
It is very difficult to understand the depth of feeling against drag hunting—although I have noted and respect the conclusion of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has urged me to support a hunting ban. I have expressed those objections to hunting supporters in my constituency, but I was unconvinced by

their response. Drag hunts have many of the social benefits that hunting supporters claim for countryside sports such as fox hunting.

Mr. Prior: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that snaring, shooting and trapping foxes is less cruel than hunting?

Dr. Turner: The honest answer is that I am not completely certain. I do not have sufficient scientific evidence. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, having been trained as a scientist, I am keen to have some facts in front of me before jumping to conclusions. I believe that, as on many occasions, we shall have to make up our minds with only part of the evidence before us.
On drag hunting, if it provides the sport and the exercise and if the agricultural community treasures the nature of the countryside in the way that it says, why not do it? That is the key question that will influence my vote on hunting. I hope that we shall be able to conduct this debate while recognising that the arguments are often shades of grey and, as a scientist and engineer, I am used to that. We cannot paint everything in stark black and white. Life is never so simple. Nature is cruel and, often, so is man. We have a responsibility in the House to debate this issue and to reach the best possible conclusion on the evidence before us. In the spirit of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, I hope that we shall try to base our conclusions on the facts.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I wish to declare a lack of interest as I do not hunt. I have been beagling a few times and I have attended meets, but I do not hunt and hardly ever ride—I can just about stay on a horse. Therefore, I am not arguing from a personal viewpoint.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made an interesting speech and his scientific analysis was interesting. However, when it came down to it, he said that we have to determine the moral issue of whether it is right to hunt foxes. I believe that he was wrong to say that reports have said that there are insignificant losses of domestic livestock to foxes. The number may be insignificant in the huge flock of hens that we have in this country, many of which live in unpleasant conditions inside buildings, but I am keen to encourage free-range hens and, of course, it is such hens that are nobbled by foxes. If a farmer has 100 hens in a free-range pen and a fox takes 20 of them, that is significant to that individual. I do not blame the fox. We should not make a moral judgment on a fox's determination to kill hens because that is its nature. However, it is at variance with what we would want if we were farmers.
Foxes need to be controlled and almost everybody who has taken part in the debate has agreed with that. We have to determine how to do that. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) who, sadly, is no longer in the Chamber, talked about shooting. I have probably fired as many rounds of rifle ammunition as anybody in the House during my 15 years in the Army and some of those were fired at deer and other animals. Regrettably, it is not easy and one is bound to wound foxes if one tries to shoot them. The only time I saw a fox shot by a farmer was when he had snared it beforehand. It may have been in a


gin trap as I was about 10 at the time. He left the fox overnight and then went back to shoot it. That is not very pleasant. Anybody trying to shoot foxes on the loose is bound to wound some. That is every bit as cruel as hunting with hounds.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) mentioned drag hunting. I have never been on a drag hunt but I am told that it is fast and furious and even more dangerous than hunting. I believe that many people who hunt must be a little bit strange because I know too many of them who have broken their necks, backs or collar bones while hunting. My point is that if they wish to hunt and take part in something that contributes—only contributes—to pest control, it is strange that so many hon. Members should try to determine their moral judgment and stop them doing so, whether it be for scientific or for other reasons.
We should address many things if we are looking at animal rights and welfare. What about halal butchery? I have never seen it, but I believe that it is pretty unpleasant. We do not hear much about that because it might be considered politically incorrect to mention it. Anybody who has been to an abattoir, and I have, will know how unpleasant that is. I am not a vegetarian, but I believe that animals should be killed as cleanly and humanely as possible, causing the least possible fear.
This is an issue of morality and, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, there are arguments on both sides. However, I do not believe that hon. Members should wish to dictate to those who want to take part in a perfectly harmless occupation which plays a part in pest control. We should not say that they cannot do that. I am astonished at the number of people who say, "You will not do this because we do not wish to do it." I do not wish to hunt, but I defend the right of those who do. The House is going down the wrong road if it is about to ban fox hunting.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I should like to return to a point that I spent too long mentioning in an earlier intervention. I am one of the sponsors of the private Member's Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and, as I have said, I am not an urban Member as I represent a large rural constituency. It is essential that any debate of this nature must be carried out objectively. In that sense, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has endeavoured to achieve that.
It is unfortunate that it is the pro-hunting lobby on the Conservative Benches who seem to be raising the issue of emotion and refusing to debate objectively. That has been shown by the fact that this morning we have heard about the conservation of hedgerows, pest control and the need to maintain foxes and to conserve the countryside as well as the need to get rid of foxes because they are a pest to fanners. Conservative Members need to make up their minds about their arguments.
This is not an emotional issue. I am not emotional about a fox because it is a little red animal with a bushy tail that looks pretty. If it is a pest, the onus is on us to look for humane ways of controlling it. That is the important issue and it was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. The association representing rural workers has made it clear that it is rural workers who have determined the policy of opposition to hunting with hounds. That is a vital point.
I have met many people in my constituency who took part in the countryside rally. It was not a rally about hunting. It demonstrated the despair felt by people who live in rural communities after the former Government's policies over the past two decades. There was a misconception among many people at that rally that a Labour Government would threaten shooting and fishing. That is untrue.

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the Labour party is hanging the entire issue of the countryside on fox hunting? That appears to be the case from the contribution made by the hon. Lady and other Labour Members.

Ms Lawrence: I reiterate the fact that the Labour party now represents 170 rural constituencies, which is more than the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives put together. The Labour party is the party of the countryside.
I want to talk about the rural economy. There is dissatisfaction among people who live in the countryside about the previous Government's policies. I can give an example from my constituency. In 1984, the gross domestic product of my constituency was 84 per cent. of the United Kingdom national average. In 1994, after 10 years under the Conservative Government, it had fallen "to 71 per cent. of that average. That reflects the massive concerns that are felt in rural areas. The Labour Government's environmental and economic policies will improve matters, but not by seeking to defend the indefensible as Conservative Members have tried to do today.

Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate and on the measured way in which he approached such a controversial issue. It is somewhat ironic that on the first occasion when 1 am required to make a speech from the Dispatch Box—I never had the opportunity to make one from the Government Bench, but one lives in hope and ambition—I find that we are addressing the emotive issue of fox hunting.
It is especially ironic because on the first occasion when I took part in a live broadcast during the 1987 general election, I participated in a Tyne Tees Television question time that was broadcast live in Yorkshire and a Conservative representative asked a question about hunting. I have had to address the issue on many occasions and I am the first to accept that it will not go away.
As the hon. Member for Norwich, North made clear, the question that we have been asked to address today does not relate to the merits or otherwise of the Bill that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), which we will doubtless scrutinise at considerable length in due course, but whether the world of science can inform our debate. That was the hon. Gentleman's key point.
I represent a huge rural constituency, and when I was a Government Back Bencher I always made my views about hunting absolutely clear. There are now seven hunts in Ryedale; there used to be nine, but two have moved to the Vale of York. There is no question but that hunting has a role to play within the community of Ryedale, where


it is well supported; equally, however, many people take a contrary view. I do not hunt and I have no wish to do so, and nor do I shoot, but we must consider extremely carefully whether we legislate to take away the individual's right to choose to do so. I have always defended that right and I do not believe that there are any grounds thus far to make me change that opinion.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North made a strong case for scientific research to be taken into account when deciding whether or not hunting with dogs should be permitted, and, perhaps more importantly, the extent to which it might be better regulated. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who is also on the Opposition Front Bench, and I both thought, however, that although the hon. Gentleman made a strong case for the role of research, it did not follow that its conclusions suggested that one could make a decision on whether hunting should be banned or more widely restricted. I thought that the hon. Gentleman made a compelling case for the value of more wide-ranging research to be carried out in the future.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the research conducted by MacDonald and Bateson, which I understand was narrowly focused. We need research to be undertaken to assess the potential for pain and cruelty to be inflicted. It should also consider the alternatives to fox hunting to which one or two hon. Members have referred, for example, snaring, shooting and gassing. The results of those practices are indiscriminate and have significant potential to cause pain and suffering.
I suspect that most, if not all, hon. Members have received a brief from the Country Landowners Association. It is interesting that it concludes by calling for more research to be carried out. It suggests that public confidence in the proper regulation of hunting would be enhanced if such research was initiated and co-ordinated by an independent authority. It might then make recommendations for the better supervision and regulation of hunting and consider complaints of breaches of codes of conduct. I am sure that we will want to discuss such issues on more than one occasion in the future.
Today we have been asked to consider the key proposition of whether research can inform our debate on hunting. I believe that it does, and I believe that the hon. Member for Norwich, North made that clear. I believe, however, that the evidence thus far is inconclusive and is not sufficiently wide ranging to justify the House deciding that there should be a complete ban on hunting with dogs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate. His speech on such an emotive subject was full of serious points based on a review of the available scientific literature and research. Of course, he is extremely well qualified to make such a speech given his expertise, understanding and the amount of reading that he has done on the subject. I also congratulate him on the thoughtful manner in which he conducted hon. Members through some of the evidence. His speech was in the best traditions of the House and I am sure that the House will look forward to further speeches from him on the subject.
I welcome the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to the Opposition Dispatch Box—as he rightly pointed out—and long may he remain there. In the few minutes available to him, he made it clear that he has a particular view, but he, too, welcomed the tone of my hon. Friend's speech and the way in which the debate has been conducted.
My hon. Friend referred to the important scientific research contained in the MacDonald and Bateson reports. Given that he dealt with them so fairly and fully, and given the time available, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not repeat their findings. Today's debate, although inflamed at times, has been marked by some useful and interesting contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) essentially made a constituency speech in which he spoke of the impact that a ban on hunting would have in his area. He rightly described the economic consequences for the rural economy and specifically the support industries, agriculture and the countryside. I thought that his conclusion was rather apocalyptic, but that will be either proven or disproved by events that may take place.
There was a difference of emphasis, if not of opinion, between the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on the issue of how many jobs may be lost if the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is put on the statute book. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole suggested that about 9,000 jobs would be lost and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he thought that 60,000 jobs would be lost.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way so that I can explain that?

Mr. Howarth: I want to say a little more, which may have an influence on the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but then I will give way. I believe that he quoted the report produced by Mr. Ralph Cobham. The House should be aware that that report was commissioned by the countryside movement. The group has a particular point of view and those statistics might reflect that.

Mr. Gray: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) referred to those jobs that are specifically attached to the sport of fox hunting. The figures I quoted include, for example, farriers, grooms, people who make saddles and look after horses, and so on. That explains the difference between the two figures.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that, even making allowances for that qualification, the figure of 60,000 jobs is probably on the high side. Nevertheless, whichever way we cut it, if legislative changes occur, there will be an impact on the rural economy. I do not know the scale of that impact—no one does—but if a current activity is stopped, some businesses and jobs will be affected in some way.
We had an interesting discussion about the "thin end of the wedge" argument in respect of angling and shooting. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading. West (Mr. Salter) confessed to being an angler and, in the spirit


of confession being good for the soul, let me confess that, for most of my life since the age of about 10, I too have been an angler. In defence I should say that when asked by a journalist whether, in view of reports on the subject, she thought that her husband's fishing was cruel, my wife responded, "Not in his case, because he rarely catches anything." I suspect that many hon. Members know that feeling well. There is a world of difference between angling and various sorts of hunting. I am not coming down on one side or the other, but it must be acknowledged that there are differences in approach and in the way the sports are perceived. Any comparison is therefore unfair, although there are some points at which they meet and they are part of the same debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West spoke about the scale of various demonstrations, but I am not sure whether that gives a measure of anything these days. That underlines the point my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North made about how we should be influenced not by who shouts the loudest, but by the evidence available—especially that from the scientific world—which we should coolly analyse before drawing our conclusions.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire brought a great deal of personal experience to the debate, both from his constituency viewpoint and from his own participation. In many respects, it is worth listening to those who have such experience; however, he indulged in a little hyperbole towards the end of his speech. I am sure that that will make good copy in his local newspaper, but it added little to the debate. We have to consider these matters soberly and although the hon. Gentleman raised some points of interest, some of his comments were more appropriate for audiences other than the House.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made an interesting and brief contribution about the nature of the fox and about people's freedom to engage in various activities. The scale is debatable, but the fact that foxes are by nature predatory and that they prey on some types of farm animal, especially chickens, is not disputed. That there is a pest element to the activities of the fox has to be conceded.
In the time left, I want to refer to recent debate—by which I mean in the past 40 years or so—and to reports that may or may not have been covered today. The last significant parliamentary report was the report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, which was presented to Parliament in 1951. Known as the Scott-Henderson report, it looked into the practices and activities that might involve cruelty to wild animals and concluded that hunting with hounds was no more cruel than any other form of pest control.
The National Trust commissioned Professor Savage's working party report, published in 1993, which studied the conservation and management of red deer and which has been mentioned today. That report did not focus on the animal welfare aspects of that form of hunting. In September 1996, the countryside movement commissioned a review of the findings of the Scott-Henderson report headed by Mr. Richard Phelps, a retired Treasury official. He recommended a new independent authority to initiate research into hunting and to regulate and supervise the practice. He argued that the authority should be self-regulatory and appointed on a basis similar to the Press Commission. That brings us the Bateson report, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, and other more recent research.
I should now say a few words about the Government's position on these issues. The Government's position on the issue of hunting with hounds is clear: we neither support nor oppose hunting with hounds—we take a neutral position. However, in our manifesto we gave a commitment to allow a free vote on whether to ban hunting. It is our intention to deliver that free vote when the opportunity to do so is presented by the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. That Bill would ban hunting with hounds and it would outlaw the hunting of deer, fox, hare and mink. It is due to be considered for Second Reading on 28 November and if it secures a Second Reading members of the parliamentary Labour party—including Ministers—will have a free vote.
It will be for Parliament to consider the question of a ban on hunting. There are complex issues associated with any such ban, including the effects on the rural economy, pest control and a range of other rural and agricultural concerns, which have all been discussed in today's debate. The scientific evidence contained in the Bateson report will no doubt be one of a number of factors that will inform the debate and help hon. Members to arrive at their own conclusion.
The assessment of the report and the conclusions drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will be a valuable addition to the debate. Most important, the manner in which he introduced today's debate—cool, dispassionate and analytical, looking at the scientific evidence, bringing it to bear and weighing one argument against another—is a good way for Parliament to proceed on this subject. If we can keep that sort of debate going over the coming months, the public will appreciate the House far better and we will have performed a valuable service in respect of both animal welfare and the wider community.

Heathrow (Regional Services)

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am glad to have been fortunate enough to get this debate in the first week after the House's return from the summer recess. Timing is everything in this case, as it so often is in transport issues.
The debate concerns the precipitate decision taken by British Airways, to take effect in just a few weeks' time, to terminate its three flights a day between Inverness airport and Heathrow, and to switch them to smaller-capacity flights with British Regional Airlines out of Gatwick.
I mean no disrespect to the Scottish Minister with responsibility for transport when I say that I am pleased that a United Kingdom Minister is to reply to my debate. There are many highlands and islands Members present in the Chamber. I hope that the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stress the all-party nature of this campaign. The crucial point is that it is not just an argument about services between Inverness and Heathrow. It is about the future of services between regional airports throughout the United Kingdom and Heathrow—and the slots for those services.
We have been here before. I shall refer again later to what happened earlier this year to services between Plymouth and Heathrow. Now the same may be about to happen to the service to Inverness. The management of British Airways have in the past offered categorical assurances on the future of these services. Now, without consulting the local community, they are announcing their wish to axe the services. I suggest, therefore, that Members representing Belfast, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Aberdeen and Glasgow should be watching anxiously, because of what has happened to Plymouth and what may happen to their services in and out of Heathrow.
We condemn the lack of consultation and BA's blatantly broken promises. We are deeply concerned about the economic impact that the termination of services will have on the economy of the highlands and islands and the north of Scotland. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Government agency with the remit of promoting the economic well-being and development of the area, has carried out an in-depth survey of the economic importance of the Inverness-Heathrow link. Some of the statistics in it are worth reading into the record. Among the three airlines plying between Inverness and Stansted, Luton or Heathrow, 85 per cent. of business flights are taken on the BA Heathrow service, and 47 per cent. of terminating passengers' destinations is Greater London. There is no doubt that Heathrow is preferred to Gatwick by most of them. Most importantly, 88 per cent. of interlining journeys on the surveyed companies were made through Heathrow, and only 12 per cent. through Gatwick.
We should bear in mind the fact that the highlands of Scotland depend heavily on adding value to products and then shipping them out quickly to other parts of the globe, in particular to other parts of the single European market. Therefore, the loss of the interlining freight facilities at Heathrow would have a considerable impact.
A week or two ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I had a detailed meeting with the Scottish Salmon Growers Association, one of whose largest member organisations employs a great many people in Inverness and on fish farms in other parts of the highlands and islands. That firm is already having to reconsider its entire export marketing strategy because of the likely loss of this service.
I will not weary the House by reading out the hundreds of pleas issued by local companies to British Airways and the Government. Suffice it to say that the threat is real and widespread. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) can speak with more authority on this matter than anyone else. The Highland Post Office Advisory Committee has written to me to express its deep concern about the change in the capacity of the new aircraft due to serve on the route. What is more, on one of the UK's most important tourist links during the summer months, about 1,000 passenger seats a week will be lost when the new aircraft to be used by British Regional Airlines is introduced. The aircraft will also have 35 per cent. less hold capacity, and in a more awkward shape. That will affect nightly postal services onward from Inverness. The committee also points out that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland
will be able to show you a dossier of complaints about mail being shut out of flights to the North Isles
since BA passed over the Stornoway slot to British Regional Airlines.
One local business man summed up the whole affair admirably:
I have no objection to British Airways' aspiration to remain one of the world's leading and most successful airlines, but I do think it should reconcile its global ambitions with its domestic responsibilities.
That hits the nail on the head.
I know that the Minister has already said that she wants to meet Robert Ayling, chief executive of British Airways, to discuss these matters. I hope today that she will also refer to the position of the European Commission. Because of BA's global ambitions and its proposed merger with American Airlines, it is under great pressure from the Commission to release slots at Heathrow for competition reasons. It would therefore be helpful if DG IV, the air transport directorate, clarified whether airlines own the slots in question or whether those slots are simply allocated to particular routes.
Once before, BA gave up these slots, which were then taken over by Dan Air. Dan Air eventually went bust, although not as a result of losses sustained on the Inverness service. Peter Clegg, the former director of marketing, said that the airline had been making £1 million a year profit on the Inverness-Heathrow service. Its financial difficulties arose from the charter business links elsewhere in Europe. If, as seems likely, the slot in question was designated for that particular route, there are legitimate grounds—given the number of changes of ownership of the route that I have outlined—for the European Commission looking into the competition implications of the proposed change.
What contacts has the Minister had with the European Union about all this? If she has had none, does she propose to have some in the future?
I mentioned earlier the parallel with Plymouth—the south-west lost its direct link with Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) wrote earlier this year to Commissioner Kinnock to express his concern. The Commissioner sent him a reply pointing out that the British Government have the power to protect regional slots at Heathrow if they so wish. A local newspaper report of 27 March said:
Mr. Kinnock added that there are rules governing how slots change hands",
and said that he was investigating. Kinnock went on to say that
a letter has been sent to the UK authorities requesting further information on these points.
That campaign was not successful, even though it was clear that the British Government do have the power to intervene in these matters.
The Labour shadow Secretary of State for Transport met local campaigners earlier this year and pledged that a Labour Government would protect flights to regional airports such as Plymouth. I noticed also that his pledge was immediately condemned by Tory strategists as electioneering. Furthermore, he urged the then Government to use their powers to protect west country air slots at Heathrow in preference to the switch to Gatwick. He said:
The message I have been given loud and clear is how crucial the Heathrow link is to people and businesses in Cornwall.
It is very evident the Government has been caught off balance by this. Only last week Sir George Young said there were no plans to vary this service. Yet within three days
announcements had been made. He added:
The Government must act now in the public interest and order British Airways to review the whole situation at Heathrow.
D' accord. I could not have put it better myself.
If that was the view that Labour transport spokesmen held in opposition as recently as February and March regarding south-west services, it would be consistent for Labour Transport Ministers to adopt the self-same approach regarding north-west services now that they are in office.
I conclude by urging two things on the Minister: first, that she respond positively to the concern that she is about to hear expressed by Labour Members, not only Opposition Members and, secondly, that she urges Mr. Ayling, when she meets him, not to take any precipitate decisions on the future of the service until the Transport Select Committee is able to examine on a United Kingdom basis the future of regional slots and the access of the regions of the country to Heathrow as a whole.
I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister responds constructively and positively.

Mr. David Stewart: I endorse the comments by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and thank him for initiating the debate.
The Government have issued a consultation paper, examining integrated transport policies. The result of British Airways' decision, not only in the highlands and islands but throughout the United Kingdom, is a disintegrated transport policy. We must attack that head-on.
We also have examples from the Republic of Ireland where, I believe, 160 slots were lost after BA pulled out of flights to Heathrow. We have heard about the example from south-west England. Now we have the issue surrounding Inverness. Which regional airport will be next? Should we stand by while slots at Heathrow are sold off to the highest bidder in a global game of Monopoly? I think not. We must take into account the social and economic consequences.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware of the weaknesses of the legislation as it relates to the current situation. The current legislation is covered by article 9 of the European Union 95/93 regulation. Perhaps this gap in the legislation relating to the safeguarding of slots should be picked up in the transport review that we are conducting, and perhaps incorporated in a future transport Act.
The aspects of the change have been well recorded. We are having a move from Heathrow to Gatwick, a reduction in capacity and a franchising out to another company. I am concerned about the loss of capacity—a loss of 50 seats per journey—and the 60 per cent. reduction in freight, which is a severe problem to industries in the highlands and islands.
There has been no consultation in Parliament about the decision. We were told what was happening a day before the decision was taken.
We are all aware of the big picture. This is about British Airways' links with American Airlines; it is about opening up Heathrow to more transatlantic and European flights. Obviously, there is much money to be made.
I have three questions. First, if Gatwick is so attractive, why did 2 million passengers and 10 airlines move from Gatwick after the traffic distribution rules were abandoned in 1991? Secondly, if British Airways has lost £8 million in the past five years—which is a matter for debate—why not send the cheaper British Regional Airlines aircraft into Heathrow? Thirdly, how does one answer the arguments of the business community in the highlands and islands about moving perishable goods when the new aircraft plant will have less cargo capacity?
I have received much correspondence. For example, Highlands Wholefoods in Inverness asked me what it should do about the import of its perishable goods if the change goes ahead.
I welcome the meetings that my hon. Friend the Minister has had with Councillor Peter Peacock, convener of Highland council, and the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had with Bob Ayling, chief executive of British Airways.
I want British Airways to continue to be Britain's favourite airline, but let us remember regional airports and fragile rural areas.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I must be brief; I thank the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and the House for enabling me to make a short intervention in this crucial debate.
The arguments have been propounded in the context of business and the tourism and passenger industry. The Minister should also remember, however, that those of us who represent the most northerly areas of the United


Kingdom have always advocated that the development of the highlands and islands be based on fair competition, and we are now witnessing unfair competition.
As a result of the removal of the link between Heathrow and Dalcross, it is almost being argued that we should return to a dependency culture. We do not want that because we want genuine competition. All industries and businesses in the highlands and islands base their success on the world-renowned quality of their produce, and all the businesses with which I have been in contact in the past few weeks have said that the ending of the link will affect them and their local communities severely in financial and employment terms.
Hon. Members have mentioned various industries; I shall mention United Distillers, because the whisky industry is very important in my area. In a briefing sent to us today, United Distillers says that it regards it as very important that the Heathrow link is maintained to enable it to sell its quality goods abroad. Small, medium-sized and corporate businesses are, therefore, united.
The Royal Air Force, which is also important in my area, uses the Dalcross link. Many of the families of the young men who come to serve in the forces in my area remain in the south of England, so those men and their families use the link, and they feel strongly that it must be retained. Obviously, the tourism issue is also extremely important.
I believe that the key issues in the debate are who owns the slots, who sells, who buys and what is the best legal opinion on the matter.
I draw the Minister's attention to the letter from Professor Trevor Salmon of the department of politics and international relations in Aberdeen, published in The Scotsman on Saturday. He said:
the view of Karel Van Miert, the European Commissioner for Competition, appears to be that the airlines do not own slots. If this opinion is correct, the Inverness slot at Heathrow is not the property of BA to dispose of. Would a legal challenge to the action of BA over the reallocation of, and claimed ownership of, slots be worth pursuing?
Is the Minister prepared to say that she will challenge BA on the legality of the transference of those slots?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on obtaining the debate and affording the House the opportunity to examine these deeply important issues. I congratulate him on his generosity in allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) an opportunity to speak. If, by any chance, as a result of his generosity, I do not complete my contribution, I will ensure that all Members receive a full copy of my speech and I will attempt to answer those questions on which I cannot touch today.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West highlighted the importance of regional air services for passengers and freight in developing economic growth and prosperity in some of the more distant areas of the United Kingdom. They play an integral role in assisting

and attracting inward investment, in facilitating exports and encouraging tourism, by their linkage with the rest of the world.
The current strong growth in regional airports and services is, therefore, encouraging. Regional airports have increased their share of air traffic from 29 to 35 per cent. in the past 20 years, and their share of total international traffic has grown even more strongly, from 17 to 27 per cent., creating a climate of confidence in the regional market for air services, which has been expressed in recent major developments in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham, and a completely new airport at Sheffield, which opened last month.
The growth in the range of services from regional airports is also encouraging. New services to London should be good for regional economies if competition on those routes keeps operators on their toes, drives costs down and pushes up standards of service. As competition has opened up, British Airways has become only one of a number of operators on many routes.
There has also been a welcome increase in direct international services from regional airports. Direct services provide a better service to the regions, whether for business, leisure or inbound tourism and help to support regional economic development. Although the picture is generally positive, however, we are going through a period of rapid change and development. Inevitably, some of those changes cause concern. When the subject is as important as economic development in the regions, it is right to address those concerns.
The transfer of the Inverness service to a franchise operator is in addition to a number of such operations from regional airports into Gatwick and Stansted. From the point of view of the customer, such services are visually indistinguishable from BA services, using the same livery and uniforms and continuing the ease of through-booking for transfer passengers. However, BA itself admits that the switch to franchise operations on the Scottish islands route has not gone smoothly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that support. There are continuing serious concerns.
The main focus of concern in the debate has been the transfer to Gatwick. I must emphasise that the scope for Government action to preserve regional air services into Heathrow is extremely limited. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West referred to slots and the European dimension. The allocation of slots at European airports is governed by an EC regulation 95/93. Its key provision is for allocation to be carried out by a slot co-ordinator acting independently of the airports and airlines, and of the member state. Under the regulation, Governments cannot, as a rule, intervene in the slot allocation process and must not attempt to influence the decisions of the slot co-ordinators.
Member states are granted a limited power to protect domestic services from busy airports to more peripheral regions. That would be done by ring-fencing the slot currently used at the busy airport for a specified regional service so that it can be used only for that route in the future. The extent of the Government's ability to ring-fence in that way is narrowly defined by the regulation and is possible only where there is only one service to any London airport and only one operator on the route.
I need not labour the point; I need say only that three operators on the Inverness route fly to three different London airports. British Airways argues strongly that


a switch to Gatwick has significant advantages for most passengers. Many onward international connections can be made with no change of terminal. There is a wider range of destinations in north America than at Heathrow. For those travelling into London, Gatwick has faster connections to central London—both the City and the west end—and direct rail connections with much of the south-east.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West also referred to the transfer of the Plymouth-Newquay service from Heathrow to Gatwick in March of this year. I understand that both passenger numbers and the proportion of interline passengers have shown strong growth in the first months of that new service. We have had correspondence with the European Commission on the south-west slot issue and answered its questions, and we understand that those answers are to the European Commission's satisfaction.
Serious concerns about Gatwick's suitability to serve the needs of Inverness and the highlands have been raised by local authorities, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As we have already heard, the Secretary of State for Scotland recently met Robert Ayling, chief executive of British Airways, and urged him to reconsider the decision to switch the Inverness service to Gatwick. I share my right hon. Friend's disappointment about the lack of consultation with local interests and, following my meeting with the Regional Airlinks to Heathrow group, I shall write to Mr. Ayling to make that point as strongly as I can.
As has been suggested, the Transport Select Committee may wish to comment—as is its right—on recent changes in regional air services. Let me reassure the House, however, that the contribution of regional airports and aviation, including regional air services, to regeneration

and competitiveness will be an important theme within the treatment of aviation in next year's White Paper. We are actively working on that aspect, with regional seminars in the east midlands and the north-east already behind us, and a national seminar on aviation and integrated transport to be held in London on 5 November.
The Government are already providing active support where it matters for aviation in the United Kingdom regions. We recognise that, in certain circumstances, some socially desirable air services may not be commercially viable, which is why the Scottish Office pays £350,000 a year to support routes to Tiree, Barra and Campbeltown on which public service obligations have been imposed because we consider them essential for the economic and social welfare of the communities that they serve.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also responsible for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd., supporting it to the tune of £6.8 million in the current financial year in recognition of the essential role that its 10 airports play in the northern Scottish economy. Furthermore, my Department demonstrates its commitment to the development of the United Kingdom's regional airports through strong advocacy of liberalisation in international air service agreements. Airlines are already free to run services from any UK airport to elsewhere in Europe, which has been one of the main factors behind the resurgence of regional airports in recent years.
I strongly believe that the way forward now is through partnership and co-operation. I urge British Airways to discuss with local authorities the implications of its proposals. It is important that all those involved work together, not to attempt to put a brake on change but to work within a changing world to develop regional air services that best meet the needs of the regions and the United Kingdom as a whole.

Reduced Earnings Allowance

Mr. Llew Smith: I am grateful to be able to bring before Parliament a major wrong that has been done to more than 21,000 victims of long-term industrial injury and disease, whose top-up pensions under the reduced earnings allowance have been cut by up to £30 a week. That represents 75 per cent. of their benefits. The cut is wrong also because it was made without consultation and because those concerned were promised that benefit, not just for a few years, but for life.
I return to this issue today because of an answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). He said:
Those affected by the transfer of over-pension-age recipients of reduced earnings allowance to the retirement allowance 16 months ago were harshly treated by the previous Government. Many people lost up to £30 a week in benefit with little advice or no advance warning, and without the transitional protection which we proposed at the time.
Regretfully, however, we have concluded that we cannot remedy that injustice without breaking our election manifesto commitment to keep within current spending totals. We have also concluded that retirement allowance is the right benefit for those recipients who are over retirement age."—[Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 8.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) correctly said in a short Adjournment debate, that reduction, experienced by some of the poorest pensioners, is equivalent to a reduction in the salary of Members of Parliament of £9,000 a year. Let us imagine the reaction if, at 3.30 this afternoon, the Leader of the House were to announce a reduction of that scale in hon. Members' salaries. I suspect that the House would be full to overflowing, and a few harsh words would be exchanged. I hope that similar sentiments can be expressed today.
On the same day as that Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is now a Welsh Office Minister and was then a shadow Opposition spokesperson on employment, was quoted in The Guardian as saying that the cuts were
a pernicious attack on some of the most vulnerable, low income households.
He added:
The retrospective manner in which the changes have been applied must surely be open to legal challenge and may well, if necessary, have to go to the European Court of Justice.
The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), when she was the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, told the South Wales Echo, after a meeting that I and other hon. Members attended in Blackpool about a year ago, that the reduced earnings allowance represented
for the individuals concerned, very large sums of money, but of course it is only a small sum of money out of the public purse. It really is one of those issues in which having a Labour Government can make a difference.
To make that difference would cost the Government only £35 million a year, and that figure would decrease every year, because some of those who would receive the benefit are dying.
The Trades Union Congress reminded us in a report that
One element of the industrial injuries scheme abolishing for injuries or ill health occurring after 1st October 1990, was the REA, designed partially to compensate victims of diseases and accidents who left their jobs to take lower paying employment, either because they were no longer able to keep up a heavy physical job, or because their condition would worsen if they stayed in the job which gave them their illness.
The TUC report went on to state that the reduced earnings allowance
was particularly useful in encouraging people to leave such jobs, such as people working in noisy occupations whose hearing was deteriorating or asthma sufferers whose condition was likely to get much worse the longer they stayed in contact with the substance which caused their asthma in the first place.
The REA thus helped to compensate for reduced pension rights. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, who ended his Adjournment debate speech by saying that, with the withdrawal of REA,
immense and needless suffering has been caused which I believe cannot be justified."—[Official Report, 21 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 1182.]
Time does not permit me to go into detail about the way in which the Tory Government decision of two years ago affected people over retirement age—that is, 65 for men and 60 for women. It resulted in REA being replaced by retirement allowance of only £9.53 a week.
The new rules governing REA benefits which came into effect on 24 March 1996 mean that the only people who will continue to get REA over pension age will be those who work for more than 10 hours a week, and a small number of people who reached retirement age before 10 April 1989.
The implications of the changes were attacked by Opposition spokespeople in the short debate when Parliament scrutinised the regulations in May 1996. At that time, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), was the social security spokesperson. He led the attack on the REA regulations and told the Conservative Minister, the former hon. Member for Monmouth, that the Labour party felt
strongly that there should have been much wider consultation
over the changes. He promised that Labour would
continue to stress the anxieties felt by particular groups and the losses that they will suffer.
My hon. Friend pointed out that it was a mark of the Conservative Government's
discomfort over the considerable public outcry about the changes that the Secretary of State has been forced to write to Members about this debate.
He added that it showed
how important the debate is and how the Government's intentions have been received by the public.
My hon. Friend highlighted the implications of the drafting of the REA regulations, which meant:
Even when there is an intention to stay in regular employment, with just one day's sickness or unemployment, a person over pension age will lose all his REA entitlement and be forced to transfer to RA.
He stressed the potential sexual discrimination in the regulations, whereby women would lose their benefit at 60 years of age, whereas men would continue to receive


the benefit until age 65. He suggested that that was contrary to the sex discrimination rules of the European Union.
My hon. Friend concluded:
The detail is clear. The Government"—
the Conservative Government—
Want to use the statutory instrument further to reduce the benefit for disabled people. The stark detail does not give the full colour and flavour of the anguish and problems that many people who fall foul of the benefit will suffer."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8 May 1996; c. 3–7.]
I agree with my hon. Friend's comments at that time. I ask now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley put it in her response to the Minister's oral answer on 28 July:
If it was wrong last year, why is it right this year?"—[Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 8.]
In December last year the current Secretary of State for Social Security was told in response to a series of written questions that he had tabled on the implications of REA that information on the number and results of appeals made to social security tribunals against reductions arising from REA
is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 17 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 534.]
Can the Minister provide such data, in the spirit of openness that we would expect from new Labour?
A year ago, on 14 November, John Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, issued a statement on the trade union response to the REA changes. He said:
This mean-minded move by the Government has come as a shock to many pensioners who were injured at work when younger. Their injuries will be with them for the rest of their lives and they thought the Government would stand by them. Ministers have broken faith with some of the most vulnerable pensioners in Britain, and they should make amends.
It gives me no pleasure to say that I agreed with John Monks then and I do so today. If the Government can find, as they rightly did, £300 million from their defence estimate to invest in the national health service, surely they can find £35 million to invest in our pensioners—to give them back the money that was stolen from them.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Withington closed the debate on the REA in Committee, he said that it had been "an interesting debate" and that the Government's response had been "appalling". I trust that no one will be able to express such negative views when the Minister responds today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I welcome this debate and the opportunity to explain this Governments' position on the reduced earnings allowance.
I appreciate the concern of my hon Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members who are present about the hardship caused to many of their constituents by the changes introduced by the previous Government, and it is right and proper that the matter should be raised.
Let me make it clear that no one questions the hardship caused to those who lost income after they had retired, nor the particular impact in the mining and industrial areas

represented by my hon Friend. I shall set out the background to the present position and explain the outcome of the Government's review.
The previous Government made changes to the regulations which transfer over-pension-age REA recipients to the lower-rate retirement allowance. Those changes came into force on 24 March 1996 and were introduced with very little warning to the people affected.
Our Government shared the concern that was widely felt about the effect on those people. Following a commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the 1996 Labour party conference, I told the House on 2 June that the Government would review the arrangements for the transfer of over-pension-age REA recipients to RA.
We carried out a thorough review of the changes, as we were bound to do, and we considered carefully whether REA could be restored in any way to the people affected.
On 28 July I announced the outcome of the review. We concluded that RA is the appropriate benefit for those recipients who had retired, and that we could not restore REA to those recipients affected by the change, without breaking our manifesto commitments to keep within current spending totals and without creating anomalies. We did recognise that it was essential to improve the way in which we handle those people who currently receive reduced earnings allowance and who have not yet retired.
As my hon. Friend said, REA is an industrial injuries benefit that is paid to employed earners who, because of an industrial accident or disease, cannot return to their regular occupation and suffer a loss of earnings as a result. The previous Government replaced special hardship allowance with REA from October 1986. SHA was basically the same as REA, but was an increase of industrial injuries disablement benefit rather than a stand-alone benefit. The maximum rate of REA payable is currently £40.44 per week.
When first introduced, REA—like SHA before it—continued to be paid after recipients had retired. In April 1987, the previous Government took the first of a number of steps to restrict the amount of REA paid to those recipients who had retired—that is, those over pension age who were no longer working. For those REA recipients who had retired by 6 April 1987, the rate of REA was restricted to the rate in payment at that time. REA was then frozen for those recipients who had retired by 10 April 1988 and again at 9 April 1989. As my hon. Friend said, those recipients are paid at the protected rates for life.
The previous Government then introduced retirement allowance on 10 April 1989 for all other REA recipients upon retirement. An REA recipient who reached pension age on or after 10 April 1989 and retired, transferred from REA to the lower-rate retirement allowance. Retirement allowance is payable at 25 per cent. of the rate of REA last in payment, subject to a maximum—currently £10.11 per week.
The legislation to transfer over-pension-age REA recipients to RA did not work as the previous Government had intended. Many over-pension-age recipients who were no longer working were not transferred to retirement allowance. The legislation provided that REA recipients must first attain pension age and then give up regular employment in order to be transferred to retirement


allowance. That meant that someone who retired only a few days before attaining pension age could not be transferred to retirement allowance. Thus there was inequity of treatment. Some 15,000 people were transferred to retirement allowance, but 20,000 others in similar circumstances could not be transferred due to the way in which the legislation was framed.
The effect of the changes made by the previous Government on 24 March 1996 meant that only those over-pension-age REA recipients who were still in regular employment would continue to receive REA. Regular employment is defined in the regulations as at least 10 hours' work a week, averaged over five weeks. This meant that all those receiving REA who were over pension age on 24 March and no longer in regular employment were transferred to the lower-rate RA from 31 March 1996. Other REA recipients would transfer to RA either when they attained pension age or when they gave up regular employment, if that occurred after they attained pension age.
The Benefits Agency reviewed 20,000 REA recipients who were over pension age on 24 March 1996, and 19,600 of those recipients were transferred to retirement allowance. A further 4,000 REA recipients who reached pension age between 25 March 1996 and March 1997 have transferred to retirement allowance.
In the south Wales valleys district—the area that dealt with disablement benefit at that time for a large part of south Wales, including my hon. Friend's constituency and several other constituencies—1,169 REA recipients were identified who were over pension age before March 1997. Those cases were reviewed and only one was not transferred to retirement allowance.
As I acknowledged when I made my announcement on 28 July, many people were treated very badly by the previous Government because they were given little or no warning that their benefit would be reduced by about £30 a week. I fully recognise the concerns that have been expressed again today. Some reduced earnings allowance recipients who had been told that they had been awarded REA for life, or for a long forward period, were transferred to retirement allowance by the changes. Recipients had been given life awards because, as the law stood then, they could not be transferred to retirement allowance.
However, awards of benefit are always made subject to the conditions of entitlement continuing. Any award can be reviewed if the recipient no longer meets the conditions of entitlement set out in the regulations in force at that time. For over-pension-age reduced earnings allowance recipients to continue to receive REA, they must be treated by the regulations as continuing in regular employment. I shall return shortly to the position of those who may have been offered further unconditional assurances about payment of REA.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, there have been hundreds of appeals to social security appeal tribunals against adjudication officers' decisions to transfer the over-pension-age reduced earnings allowance recipients to retirement allowance. Many of those cases were awaiting the outcome of two appeals to the social security commissioners. On 28 May, the commissioners decided the cases and confirmed the adjudication officers'

decisions to transfer REA recipients to retirement allowance. We believe that the claimants may appeal that decision in the Court of Appeal. Other cases awaiting social security appeal tribunal hearings should now be heard.
My hon. Friend asked about the information that is available on the treatment and outcome of several appeals. That issue has not been raised with me before now, and I shall look into it. However, I cannot be certain that I can provide the answers that my hon. Friend seeks.
As I have mentioned already, we announced on 2 June that we would review the REA position. We quickly carried out a thorough review of the transfer of over-pension-age REA recipients to retirement allowance, and I announced the outcome to the House on 28 July. Our first conclusion was that retirement allowance is the appropriate benefit for those REA recipients who are over pension age and have retired from regular employment. It is not appropriate to compensate someone for a loss of earnings who would not be working even if he or she was not disabled.
We recognise that many of the 24,000 REA recipients who were transferred to retirement allowance feel that they were treated unjustly. We considered, as part of the review, restoring REA or giving transitional protection to those recipients who had been affected by the changes. Leaving aside for one moment the real problems of public spending—I must return to them later—we should recognise that action would create its own problems.
If REA were restored to all those recipients affected by the changes, the previous differences in treatment between those who had and had not been transferred to retirement allowance would be restored. The 15,000 over-pension-age REA recipients who had already been transferred to retirement allowance before the March 1996 changes were made would continue to be treated unfavourably compared with those in similar situations who were not transferred to retirement allowance until the March 1996 changes were made.
Those changes were made 18 months ago. There would be similar difficulties and unfairness if we now sought to give transitional protection to those people who lost REA. These are real difficulties but, fundamentally, I ask my hon Friend to recognise that he and I were elected on a manifesto that committed this Government to keeping within the current spending totals.

Ann Clwyd: I recognise the difficulty facing my hon. Friend the Minister in putting his case. However, I remind him that there have been spending adjustments in Departments—an extra sum has been found in the Department of Health to try to avert the crisis that may be imminent in the health service this winter. I think that most people recognise the injustice—which was again drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) this morning—of what happened to people last year. Although I recognise that that action was taken by the previous Government, surely some adjustment can be made in the Department of Social Security to take account of the injustice that has been done to the people whom we represent.

Mr. Denham: I have made it clear that that injustice is not the subject of today's debate. We must take account


of the pressures on Government spending and the importance of those commitments in all our decision making. We would all welcome decisions to increase investment in the health service this winter, but not every pressing demand on the Government can be met within the prudent spending limits that we have quite rightly adopted.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. He continually rests his case on the election manifesto commitment on public expenditure, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reminded us, the Secretary of State, when shadowing this responsibility, said very clearly to a deputation of hon. Members that this was an issue on which a Labour Government really could make a difference.

Mr. Denham: We have followed through that discussion by keeping our commitment to have a review—the announcement that I made in June. If I may, I would like to make some progress to explain the action that we have taken.
We estimate that to restore REA to all those people affected would cost around £45 million a year gross, about £40 million after allowing for offsets. This could be found only by cutting support for others in need. The overriding need for prudent public spending and to meet our priorities to improve education and health services means that we are not in a position to tackle every hardship and injustice caused by the previous Administration. We have concluded that it would not be possible to restore REA or provide retrospective transitional protection.
However, as I have said, many of the 24,000 REA recipients who transferred to retirement allowance following the March 1996 changes were treated very

badly by the previous Government. It was harsh that they received very little warning of the reduction in their income of about £30 a week. That caused many pensioners considerable financial hardship. We are determined that REA recipients who transfer to RA in the future are better prepared than those who transferred under the previous Government. We have arranged for the Benefits Agency to write to all REA recipients to give them sufficient warning that they will suffer a reduction in their benefit when they attain pension age if they are not working. This will enable them to plan for their future.
As my hon Friend said, there may be individuals who have received a notice that an award of REA would continue to a particular date or for life who can show that the Benefits Agency made a mistake in giving them a further unconditional assurance that the award would continue for that period. In such circumstances, the individual may be able to get help under the Department's special payment arrangements, which offer financial redress in cases of maladministration. As the unconditional assurance should not have been given, an exgratia payment can be considered in these cases if the individual can show that he or she has undertaken an on-going financial commitment based upon the unconditional assurance.
This is a most regrettable situation which we inherited from the previous Government, but I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate why we are not able to restore REA to those unfortunately affected by the changes without adequate warning. I hope that they will recognise also the steps that we have taken to ensure that, in future, REA recipients will be given sufficient warning of the position when they reach pensionable age.

Sitting suspended.

Fishing Vessel Sapphire (Recovery of Wreckage)

On resuming—

Mr. Alex Salmond: Four weeks ago to the day, the Sapphire—Peterhead-registered fishing boat 285—was lost about 12 to 15 miles from its home port. My constituents Adam Stephen, Robert Stephen, Bruce Cameron and Victor Podlesny lost their lives. Our proceedings are being heard by representatives of those men's immediate families and by the only survivor of the tragedy, Victor Robertson. These are people who are united in grief and also united in a campaign to have the bodies of their loved ones returned to their families, if that is humanly possible, to allow a family burial.
The campaign, which is being conducted with the most enormous dignity, is supported by the local mission, by local councillors, by the wider community of Peterhead and by every fishing community the length and breadth of the country, there being a special bond that unites people facing tragedy.
I want to do three things in this brief debate. First, I want to set out an argument as to how we should deal with people in the circumstances that I have outlined, including the right attitude to adopt, and the modern and correct attitude towards family burials instead of services of remembrance.
Secondly, I want specifically to focus on what I regard as a huge anomaly within our system of public administration, which is that no one has any public responsibility for recovering the bodies of men lost at sea. It is extraordinary that there should be no such responsibility, and it is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
Thirdly, I want to present to the Minister information that I made available to her yesterday evening on the results of a feasibility study commissioned by the families, which shows beyond any reasonable argument, I think, that it is possible to recover the Sapphire and to have a good chance of recovering the bodies—all or some—of the lost men.
The traditional attitude in fishing communities was towards sea graves, but there has been a substantial change in recent years. The reason above anything else is that we have seen 25 years of new technology in the North sea. We have an oil industry that daily uses techniques and technology to recover many things from the sea bed, from oilfield debris to second world war mines. Millions upon millions of pounds are expended in that process. It is now technically possible to locate, survey and raise fishing vessels that are lost at sea. That was not the position in the past.
Over the past few years—I know this from speaking to inspectors privately in the marine accidents investigation branch—in virtually every instance of a fishing boat being lost, there has been a real and passionate demand from the families involved to have the bodies of the lost men recovered.
Seven years ago, there was a well-publicised campaign, supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including many hon. Members whom I see in their places today, to raise the Antares, a boat which

sank in different circumstances but which was the subject of a vociferous campaign by Clyde fishermen over several weeks before the Ministry of Defence agreed to do what I believe it was duty bound to do, and raise the Antares—from deeper water, incidentally, than that in which the Sapphire is lying. The exercise resulted in the bodies of three men being recovered. One body was later recovered in the estuary.
I was speaking recently to Patrick Stewart of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. He was in no doubt that the recovery of the Antares greatly assisted the grieving process, and that the recovery of the men's bodies was of substantial comfort to the families involved. I therefore think that feelings within the fishing community and in the wider community have changed.
The attitudes that have changed in the fishing community, as so clearly demonstrated in recent tragedies, are mirrored in the general attitudes of society. For example, in past conflicts, men lay as they fell. In more recent conflicts, such as the Gulf war and the Falklands, service families have had the option of having the bodies of their lost ones returned for family burials, and rightly so. Our attitudes as a society are changing, and because of improved technology, the change of attitude has been especially rapid within the fishing community.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As my hon. Friend knows, I have already written to the superintendent of the mission in his constituency expressing the condolences of the fishing communities of Moray on the loss of the Sapphire, which has recalled for many of us the loss of the Premier. My hon. Friend might care to extend the debate slightly further, because there are instances of fishermen being lost at sea without the loss of the boat on which they were sailing. There is a strong case for investigations to be undertaken in all losses of life at sea in such circumstances, and I refer particularly to the loss of my constituent, Neill Wood.

Mr. Salmond: Only too tragically, my hon. Friend and other Members who represent fishing communities will have similar experiences. Many Members—some of whom are in the Chamber today—have written to me and my constituents over the past few weeks expressing their sympathy and condolences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) brings me to my second point. It is remarkable that no public agency has any formal responsibility for recovering the bodies of men lost at sea. As a society, we spend millions of pounds recovering second world war mines, which are a danger to oil installations. One was recovered quite recently at a cost of several million pounds, and rightly so. But there is no agency with responsibility for recovering the bodies of lost men. The remit of the MAIB is confined purely to determining the cause of the incident.
My constituents and the wider fishing community are acutely concerned to ascertain the cause of the sinking of the Sapphire. There is also concern that the bodies of the lost men should be returned. That concern is not answered formally by any public agency.
The Sapphire sank on 1 October. On 19 October it was located and surveyed by a remotely operated vehicle. It is arguable—it is almost definite—that the boat would not have been found if it had not been for the intervention of


one of the widows, Isobel Podlesny. She was able from her knowledge of the fishing community to determine new co-ordinates from where an oil slick had been seen. The surveying vessel proceeded to these co-ordinates, and found the Sapphire just before the contract expired. I mention that because it shows the determination of the families involved, including their relatives, to have their men returned if humanly possible.
The Sapphire was located and surveyed. It is lying in 83 m of water—270 ft, for those who still think in "old money". It is lying on its starboard side and is intact, as if it had been placed on the sea bed. Determining the cause of the accident is the responsibility of the MAIB, and I am sure that it would be greatly assisted by having the physical evidence that would come with the return of the vessel. Even within the narrow bounds of present public responsibility, I submit that the Minister can ask for that to be done.
The Minister should institute a review and give an agency the responsibility—whether the MAIB or another public body—of examining the feasibility of recovering boats lost at sea. No one would argue—certainly not my constituents—that recovery is possible in every case. In many instances, the boat cannot be found. In some, the boat will be so badly damaged as to make its recovery impossible. In others, there will be a huge element of danger, making it impracticable to recover the boat. However, someone should have responsibility—with the onus on recovering the bodies of lost men, if that is possible—to examine feasibility and to come to a considered judgment.
It is totally unsatisfactory that no one had that responsibility. Investigations proceed on a time scale that is designed purely for the official investigation into the cause of an accident. It is now four weeks to the day since the Sapphire sank, and that time scale has been painfully slow for my constituents.
I do not blame the inspectors or the management of the marine accidents investigation branch, who are working to a remit in determining the cause of the accident. But we, as the people who frame legislation, should fill this public responsibility vacuum, ensuring that some agency has such a function and remit, and answers the call of these families in their grief.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity at least to consider that wider element, so that no families in future suffer the agony of uncertainty that my constituents and many constituents of other hon. Members have suffered in recent years.
The Minister has written a letter to the relatives in which she sets out the reasons why the boat cannot be recovered. She argues that informal advice from the MAIB shows that a dive to recover the bodies would involve an element of danger to the divers concerned. Quite properly, she considers that such a dive would not be justified and could not be undertaken. All my constituents agree with that.
The families, passionate and determined though they are to recover their lost relatives, would not argue that any human life should be placed in jeopardy in that enterprise. These are fishing families, so they are aware of the dangers of the sea, and would not argue for anyone to be put in that position.
Fortunately, and overtaking the Minister's correspondence, we have available a feasibility study—I faxed a copy to the Minister last night, after she had written the letter to the families—which was published a few minutes ago in its full terms.
This study into the feasibility of lifting the vessel from the sea bed and recovering the bodies of the lost men was conducted on behalf of the relatives by Dronik Consultants, the company employed by the MAIB to survey and locate the vessel. It agrees with the informal advice given to the Minister that a pressurised dive at that depth to a vessel lying on its starboard side would be dangerous and unjustified. It would also be a costly operation: the cost is estimated to be £800,000.
Luckily, there is an alternative. The feasibility study sets out how that alternative can be carried through. The technology of lift barge vessel recovery is available, and would be cheaper and totally safe, because it does not involve the use of divers, but merely a remotely operated vehicle.
Luckily also, by coincidence a vessel with the capability to lift the Sapphire from the sea on to its deck and bring it back to port is at present in Scottish waters: Tak Lift 4 is available from today for the next 21 days, with no schedule of work. A plan to lift the Sapphire could be carried out by that vessel at an approximate cost of £380,000. It would involve no danger, no pressurised diving and no jeopardy of any other human being, and would enable the bodies of these men to be returned to their grieving families.
I hope that the Minister will take careful note of this new information, and agree to consider her position. This information has come to light through the initiative of the Sapphire families. I accept that this is a difficult question, as do the families, but we must have a considered public response.
There is no doubt that recovery of the vessel would assist the process of determining the cause of the accident, and it is possible for the Minister to order its recovery within the terms of her remit and that of the MAIB. The sum of £380,000 is not insignificant, but in relation to the massive expenditure on the North sea, it is a very small sum indeed. Given the impact that it would have on the lives of my constituents and the grieving families, it would be a massive step forward. By forcing us as a society to accept public responsibility through an agency that would examine feasibility in future cases, it would be a step well worth taking.
It is not always in politics that we get a chance to do the right thing. I am hoping that the Minister will take the opportunity to do it today. The right and just thing is to accede to the families' demands to lift the Sapphire, and to give them hope that some or all of these men will be returned to their homes. On this occasion, we should let humanity prevail.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I express my deepest sympathy for the families so grievously bereft by this tragedy. I am sure that we all send our commiserations to the surviving skipper of the Sapphire, who continues to suffer the trauma of this terrible accident. I am equally sure that the hon. Member


for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wishes with all his heart that there had been no necessity for him to raise this debate. However, there is a necessity to debate the matter, and it is entirely right that the House should do so.
Mindful of the agony of not knowing for the families so grievously bereaved, I am assured that the staff of the marine accidents investigation branch kept them fully informed of progress during the search for the vessel and the on-going inquiry, and I am grateful to them for that. The families have also been shown the complete video of the underwater survey of the Sapphire. A full photographic survey of the wreck was made, despite difficulties in manoeuvring the remotely operated vehicle around nets and wires floating in the vicinity.
No bodies were seen. That does not imply that they were not there—merely that nothing was visible to the camera. I am told that the families viewed the video with great dignity—surely a harrowing experience for them—and it remains their collective wish for the bodies to be recovered.
Searches for and recovery of bodies can, theoretically, be carried out by divers. The hon. Gentleman referred to a feasibility study, but I regret that I have not seen it in detail, and I am dependent on the advice that has been given to me by officials. Although the feasibility study shows that recovering the Sapphire is technically achievable subject to fair weather, it also shows that it is a difficult operation. The estimate of costs is almost £400,000, but that should not be central to our considerations.
The marine accidents investigation branch has sought expert opinion on the prospects in this case. Although it would be technically possible to deploy divers under saturation conditions, the presence of nets and other obstacles makes that task extremely hazardous. Furthermore, the trauma suffered by divers in undertaking the terrible task of recovering bodies, if they could be located, must be taken into account.
The MAIB's philosophy with regard to diving on wrecks is that divers' lives must not be put at risk unnecessarily, and the operator's decisions on their deployment is paramount. I am extremely reluctant to risk compounding this tragedy by promoting actions that are not justified on grounds of safety, and that could lead to further loss of life.

Mr. Salmond: As soon as we received the feasibility study yesterday evening, I faxed it to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have a meeting later this afternoon at which these matters can be further discussed. The feasibility study suggested that divers would be put at unacceptable risk, and it does not recommend such action. It would also be a costly operation. The study suggests that the option of lifting the vessel from the sea bed is very real, and has a far greater chance of success than sending down divers.
We are aware that there is no certainty in this life, and certainly none in dealing with the sea; but the feasibility study by a company employed by the Government to survey the vessel suggests that there is a very good chance

of a lifting vessel being successful in the enterprise, and a good chance that such a vessel will be available in the Scottish sector over the next 21 days.

Ms Jackson: I will try to read the feasibility study before I meet the hon. Gentleman and the families. I take his point, but it does not strike me as a point of principle that I could endorse at this stage.
The decision on whether to raise a wreck can sometimes be finely balanced. It may be appropriate to raise or remove a wreck that is a hazard to navigation, to prevent or minimise pollution from cargoes, or to determine the cause or causes of loss. The Sapphire is lying on her starboard side in a depression on the sea bed at a depth of about 90 m; at that depth, the wreck does not pose a hazard to navigation. As for the need to prevent or minimise pollution from cargoes, here again there is no argument to support raising the wreck.
The decision on whether the Sapphire should be raised to determine the cause of her sinking lies with the chief inspector of the MAIB. If the chief inspector finds that he cannot establish the cause of a vessel's loss by examination of the available evidence, he will consider raising a wreck. In the case of the Sapphire, however, it now seems likely that sufficient material is available to allow the inspectors to make progress with their investigation without raising the wreck.
Since its formation in 1989, the MAIB has raised only one wreck, the much smaller Gorah Lass, off the north coast of Cornwall earlier this year. On that occasion, unlike the occasion involving the Sapphire, there were not enough leads for the investigation to proceed without recovery. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Antares—to which he referred—was raised by the Royal Navy.
The feasibility of raising a wreck will vary according to the size of the vessel, the depth of the water, the time taken to locate the vessel and many other factors. While I acknowledge that the recovery of a vessel may be of assistance in an investigation, experience shows that the process of raising a wreck may sometimes destroy crucial evidence. That, I believe, is another factor when we are considering the possibility of raising such a wreck for the recovery of bodies. Equal damage could be caused. Even if a wreck is recovered intact, there can be no guarantee that the evidence will be of value to an MAIB investigation.
Recovery of bodies from wrecks is a difficult issue. Even the most expert diving operation has its limitations. There is always the prospect that divers will never be able to search every part of a wreck. Even if some bodies are discovered and subsequently recovered, there remains the prospect that others may never be found.
There are also strong arguments for protecting, as graves, sunken wrecks associated with loss of life. The Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 provides the Secretary of State with powers to protect war graves; unauthorised interference with wrecks designated under those powers is a criminal offence. The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 provides power to implement international agreements relating to the protection of wrecks outside the United Kingdom's territorial sea.
The Government will shortly use that power to implement, and become party to, the agreement on the wreck of the Estonia. The agreement designates the wreck


site as the final resting place of the victims of the disaster, and requires parties to make interference with the site a criminal offence. The UK is also participating in negotiations with Canada, France and the United States on a multilateral agreement on the wreck of the Titanic.
Let me return to the tragedy of the Sapphire. I am sure that the House wishes to pay tribute to the search and rescue effort that was mobilised when the Aberdeen coastguard was alerted to the sighting of two red flares by the fishing vessel Elegance, a partner vessel to the Sapphire. The search involved two RNLI lifeboats, two RAF rescue helicopters, one RAF Nimrod aircraft and 19 fishing and oil industry support craft.
The search for the four missing crew members was suspended at 2300 hours, and resumed at dawn the next morning. An RAF rescue helicopter from Lossiemouth, along with the RNLI lifeboats from Peterhead and Fraserburgh, carried out a search in the area. The area was thoroughly searched by numerous craft, and the Aberdeen coastguard, in consultation with other authorities, terminated the search at 1100 hours on 2 October.
A search is not called off until all possible areas have been thoroughly searched and there is no likelihood of survivors' being found. That is never an easy decision, and it is made only after the most careful consideration.
In general terms, I must emphasise the Government's concern for the safety of all fishermen. The Marine Safety Agency is responsible for the implementation of the Government's strategy for marine safety—

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: I would, but, with respect, I have already allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once—

Mr. Salmond: There is plenty of time.
The Minister wrote to my constituents expressing her condolences: the letter arrived in Peterhead this morning. She founded her argument, properly and legitimately, on the case that an operation by divers to recover the bodies from the Sapphire would not be justified because of the danger involved.
We have produced a feasibility study carried out by a company with impeccable credentials, which shows that a cheaper and better option with far more chance of success is available to the Minister. Surely she will now give me an undertaking that she will at least consider the study, and, at the meeting that we are to have with the families this afternoon, will undertake to look at it and see if she can return to the subject and consider whether an operation by lift barge would not be possible and well justified in the circumstances.

Ms Jackson: I am perfectly prepared to give the hon. Gentleman and the families involved an assurance that

I will look at the feasibility study, but I am not in a position to give an assurance that I will accept its findings. There are serious considerations, regardless of this or any other feasibility study, which must be given due weight. I am prepared to read the study, but I am not prepared to give an assurance that I will change my initial position—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, I made plain in my letter.
The chief inspector of the MAIB concluded that it was necessary to try to locate the sunken vessel, and to inspect it using video cameras mounted on a remote-operated vehicle. That is a normal method of carrying out underwater surveys. A suitable vessel was chartered following the normal process, and a 72-hour contract was placed on 20 October. Unfortunately, the wreck was not located during that period, and the contract was therefore extended by 24 hours to widen the search area.
While the extended search was under way, on the evening before the search was due to be completed, one of the next of kin contacted the MAIB with the position of a previously unreported oil slick, which had been passed to her by the crew of another fishing vessel. That position was found to correlate with a very small target that had already been seen on the sonar trace. A further extension in contract time was necessary to investigate that contact.
The decision to do that was made, and the remotely operated vehicle was launched to investigate. It discovered and positively identified the Sapphire, lying—as I said—on her starboard side in a depression that was uncharacteristic of the sea bed in the region. That is why it had not shown up more extensively in the original search. Throughout that time, the next of kin were regularly updated on how the search was progressing.
In view of the importance of finding out why the Sapphire capsized, and because of the public interest, the status of the investigation will be that of an inspector's inquiry. A report will be submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister within 12 months of the incident. Subject to his approval, it will be published.
The sea can be a cruel and exacting master. Since the loss of the Sapphire, two further lives have been lost in fishing vessel accidents. My own family has paid such harsh dues to the sea, in both peace and war. But, however cruel the sea may be, I believe that it is—by virtue of those who have given their lives to it—not only a peaceful but an honourable, indeed noble, final resting place. I hope that the families who have experienced such grievous loss in this tragic incident will be able to contemplate it as a final resting place for their loved ones.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Parades

Ms Corston: What steps are being taken to reduce tensions over parades in Northern Ireland. [12405]

Mr. Savidge: What steps are being taken to reduce tensions over parades in Northern Ireland. [12415]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): As my hon. Friends will know, the Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill received its Second Reading in another place yesterday. The Bill is designed to tackle the difficulties that have surrounded the parades issue in recent years by encouraging local agreement and by giving the Parades Commission the power to make decisions and determinations where appropriate.

Ms Corston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her fine record of achievement in just six months as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
As the current Parades Commission membership has been open to criticism, or been criticised, by some people on both sides of the community, will my right hon. Friend review its membership?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her kind comments. The achievement has been the work of many people over the past six months. In the end, it is the Northern Ireland political parties that will make a difference in Northern Ireland and that will make progress or not. In previous months, they have shown, across the board, much courage in getting us to where we are.
I do not have any intention of changing the make-up of the Parades Commission. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Alistair Graham and his colleagues for the good job that they have done. Up to now, they have been doing their job with one hand tied behind their backs. With the legislation that is in the other place, we are giving the commission the powers that were recommended for it in the North report. That will enable it to carry out its role as North envisaged.
It is now up to both sides to work with the commission to try to reach the most peaceful solution to the parades issue in the next year. In the end, accommodation is the best way forward and accommodation will be reached by people working hand in hand with the commission.

Mr. Savidge: I endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston). What impact will the legislation that my right hon. Friend has introduced have on more contentious parades such as Drumcree?

Marjorie Mowlam: Drumcree, in the end, is part of a broader issue. To deal with the Drumcrees,we will have

to try to find mechanisms to build confidence between the two communities and to build greater trust and respect. The Parades Commission has been set up to try to address issues such as Drumcree: the commission will be able to consider individual parades and to determine an outcome, taking into account both the rights of people to march and their responsibilities towards the rights of others to be free from fear and intimidation.
The Bill is not anti-marching, but is an attempt to accommodate the two sides of the community in terms of reaching an accommodation that they can both live with. In the end, if we get to the determinant powers that the Bill will give to the Parades Commission, we shall have failed to reach an accommodation, which is the best way to move forward. The Parades Commission will be ready to do that in the months ahead when the legislation has passed through the House.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State have no second thoughts about her capitulation to the IRA-inspired and orchestrated pressure over the parades issue? Is not the truth the prediction of Dublin journalist and writer Ruth Dudley-Edwards, who suggested that, if the Orange Order sought to accommodate on this issue, pressure would be applied to the Royal British Legion and then to the Girls Brigade? Has Bellaghy not proved Ruth Dudley-Edwards to be correct? Does the Secretary of State intend that further capitulation on the Bellaghy issue will be, in effect, another tranche of the danegeld that she is obliged to pay to keep the IRA at the table of democracy?

Marjorie Mowlam: I obviously disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no hidden agenda; there is just a straightforward attempt to listen to all sides after Drumcree last year. We said after that situation that we were committed to bringing in the Parades Commission and its statutory powers, and we said that we would listen to people. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's party, to Church groups and to parties across the board and tried to respond positively to all of them. In terms of the Bellaghy issue, I was with the Guides the day before yesterday.
We will treat all situations in a fair and open fashion. Part of the object of the Parades Commission is to let people see the open, transparent process that will be followed to reach a determination. It is important for people to remember that the commission is not anti one side or the other; it is trying to assist with an accommodation and to reach a conclusion about parades next year so that people do not have to live through the violence that has occurred previously.

Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that marches and parades that give offence, deny the rights of others and inject sectarian venom into the community should derive no credit or advantage from the fact that they are traditional and have traditionally poisoned relationships within Northern Ireland? Will she ensure that, in the new parades legislation, new Labour thinking on this issue will not be strangled by the old dogma of traditionality?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I reiterate that the basis of the Parades Commission is to acknowledge the rights of both


communities—the right to march, to free assembly, to protest and to have freedom from fear and intimidation by others. That is the basic principle on which it will be based.
The Parades Commission has a broad set of criteria on which to reach conclusions. They take into account a host of recommendations and are not just limited as they have been in previous years. In that sense, I hope that the full statutory powers that the commission will be given if the legislation is passed through both Houses will provide broader criteria on which to reach a conclusion which, we hope, will be acceptable to more people.

Mr. MacKay: Surely the best way to reduce tensions, both in respect of parades and elsewhere in the Province, would be for the Secretary of State to state categorically today that we have absolutely no political prisoners in this country and that she will never again do the sort of shabby deal that she did with David Irvine of the Progressive Unionists, which would have led to a very evil murderer in Jason Campbell leaving prison in Scotland and going to the Province. [Interruption.]

Marjorie Mowlam: I will answer the question in relation to Jason Campbell. I apologise for any upset or hurt that was caused to the Scott family. I am sorry if it caused them any deeper pain than they already felt.
Jason Campbell claimed family ties in Northern Ireland. Like the previous Government, we have followed the policy of transferring prisoners closer to their families. The Conservative Government did that previously and we have continued to do that.
It subsequently became clear that the claims that Jason Campbell had made were false. The decision was then corrected and the transfer was refused. I believe that that was a correct decision. However, in line with the European convention, the Government remain committed to the principle of, where possible, transferring sentenced prisoners to places closer to their families.

Peace Process

Mr. Corbyn: What recent meetings she has had with political parties to discuss the peace process. [12407]

Mrs. Fyfe: If she will make a statement on the present state of the peace talks. [12408]

Mr. Tony Clarke: What progress has been made in multi-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland. [12412]

Mr. Soley: If she will report on the progress of the negotiations in Northern Ireland. [12414]

Marjorie Mowlam: The talks started on 24 September and by 7 October we had had substantive discussions in the talks on all three strands. Since 7 October, the talks have, for the most part, proceeded in a calm, constructive and businesslike manner. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and I have had multi-party talks in the talks process with all the parties. Alongside that, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), and I have had meetings with the hon. Member for North Antrim

(Rev. Ian Paisley) and his party in normal bilateral meetings. A couple of weeks ago in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also met the parties.

Mr. Corbyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her work in getting the talks under way and her preparedness to meet all parties in Northern Ireland as a way of furthering the peace process. Does she agree that it is important to keep the peace process on track and to keep confidence-building measures going? My right hon. Friend has already mentioned the transfer of prisoners, but will she enlighten the House further on whether more prisoners will be transferred, either to Northern Ireland or to the Republic, as is appropriate? Does she recognise that maintaining prisoners in Britain is often as much a punishment on their families as it is on the individuals themselves, and that transfers are an important part of building confidence in the peace process?

Marjorie Mowlam: I made it clear in response to an earlier question that we would continue to transfer prisoners closer to their families because that was in the best interests of the judicial system. This is one of the many issues that have been raised during the talks process and, in considering it, we must also take into account broader questions, such as the pain and suffering felt by the friends and families of those who have been killed. We made announcements last week on exactly that point. We shall continue to consider the merits of each case separately, as we have done up to now.

Mrs. Fyfe: People in Glasgow will very much welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on Jason Campbell. Will she join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition on its constructive role in the talks? Attitudes such as it brings forward will help the talks move towards a successful conclusion by, we all hope, May next year.

Marjorie Mowlam: May is the date for which we are aiming to reach an accommodation that can be put to the people of Northern Ireland—the final guarantee in the basic principle that guides us is consent: that no decision that comes out of the talks will be acted on until the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of them, have stated their views.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition has been a positive force in the talks process. When I turn around and see so many women in the House, I look forward to seeing more women in the political process in Northern Ireland. However, only the actions of all the parties in the talks process, together, reaching an accommodation, will move the process forward. Our wishes must be that the parties must accommodate and work together, otherwise the progress that we would all like to see will not happen.

Mr. Clarke: May I add my congratulations and express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend and—as she said—her team for their sterling work over the summer recess? Will she use this occasion to enlighten the House on the public's mood and response to the all-party talks? We have heard much about what the parties, politicians and media have to say of events in Northern Ireland, but how have the public reacted to the work that has been done over the recess?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Although, given the chance, many Northern


Ireland hon. Members have their own views on the public mood, the first thing that people say to me when I talk to them is, "Please continue; we must have peace." The second thing that they say is, "Jobs—jobs will make the difference." Those are the two overwhelming messages that one receives. Sometimes, the questions asked in the various polls—although we could quote the Belfast Telegraph poll versus the News Letter poll and reach different conclusions, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to do—produce responses that reveal the amount of fear and distrust in the communities. One can ask any set of questions and discover the fear that people feel. It is therefore up to all those involved in the process to try to build the trust and confidence that ultimately will produce the respect that will move the process further.

Mr. Soley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Britain and of Ireland are united in wanting the process in Northern Ireland to work and in wishing the people of Northern Ireland well? Does she also accept that the people of Britain and of Ireland greatly admire the efforts made in recent months by her and her team? Both in Britain and in Ireland, however, we also expect something. We expect a very high standard of political leadership in the north—from both Unionist and republican leaders—which, sadly, has sometimes been missing. It seems that a real effort is now being made by both sides, and everyone in the two islands wants to help those leaders in the negotiations—which, preferably, will be finished by 1 May 1998. It is a hard deadline, but it is a goal that they could achieve. They will receive all our support and acclamation if they do so.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I agree with every word of it.

Mr. Hunter: As the Government believe that confidence-building measures have a part to play in the process, and as those measures include prisoner issues, whose confidence was the Secretary of State trying to build in her recent decision on the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright? Is she aware of the anger and resentment that that decision has caused, and that it has undermined the Army's confidence in her?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Yesterday, I met Army representatives, and they did not mention that point to me. However, that does not mean that the decision was not very difficult, and I do not want in any way to underestimate the matter.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter came across my desk because the previous Government decided to move up the review by the Life Sentence Review Board from 10 to five years. In those circumstances, I examined the case—as it is my job to do—and I made a judgment in the round, based on the conditions that I was faced with. I decided that, for deterrence and retribution for the murder, it was necessary for them to serve six years before the case was again reviewed. I made that decision only because of the role that I must play in such cases.

Mr. Donaldson: Given the Secretary of State's commitment to building confidence, does she share with me the deep concern felt in the Unionist community about the memorandums that were leaked, emanating from the

Anglo-Irish secretariat at Maryfield? Does she agree that it shows the secrecy and underhanded dealing in the Government's approach to Northern Ireland? Given the Government's commitment to open government, is it not time that the Maryfield secretariat was closed? Would not its closure do an enormous amount to build confidence in the Unionist community that the Government are even-handed in their approach to Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by condemning the Loyalist Volunteer Force threat to the Irish and the British working at the Anglo-Irish secretariat at Maryfield and I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in doing that. I understand the Unionists' deep concern about the issue and we have discussed it with the Unionist parties. We are committed to openness and transparency. I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and others that we are looking at ways of making things more open, as we are in response to letters from the public in terms of making the talks more open. The difficulty is that, when trying to reach agreements, it is sometimes difficult to put things into the public domain immediately. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and we will be as open as we can.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement that there is underhand activity taking place. There is not. I have said clearly today that there is no hidden agenda. I can assure hon. Members that we will continue to talk and work with the Irish because history has shown that, when the British and Irish Governments work together, more progress can be made.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Would the Secretary of State care to catalogue for the House the amount of illegal weaponry that has so far been decommissioned under the Government's scheme? Would she care to tell the House what the Government understand to be the intention of each of the paramilitary organisations in relation to decommissioning their illegal weaponry?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have made it clear on numerous occasions that we would like to see some decommissioning during the talks, in line with the Mitchell report. In case there is any doubt among hon. Members, that is the same position as the previous Government. I pay tribute to General de Chastelain and his colleagues for their work towards that end in the decommissioning commission.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I can tell the House today that the commission has now presented its initial report to the two Governments. Both Governments have started to consider that report today and I envisage that it will shortly be submitted to the decommissioning sub-committee in the talks. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman will not be there at the talks to read that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the United Kingdom Unionist party have a chance to reconsider their position, because their voice would mean so much more if it was heard at the talks.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that her counterpart in the Irish Government, Mr. David Andrews, declared yesterday that the future of the Union was on the table for negotiation and that the representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA have stated that their purpose in the talks is to smash the Union? Is it the


Government's policy to secure and strengthen the Union or to go along with the expressed views of those two participants?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. As the House knows, numerous views have been expressed about the desired outcome of the process. Some want a united Ireland and some want the present situation of the Union to continue. We have said that all options are on the table.
It is important to remember that consent is the guiding principle of this Government in the process. Without the consent of the people, nothing will change. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, in the talks process decisions are taken by sufficient consensus, which means that we need a majority of both communities represented by parties in the talks process for any decision to be reached. Above that, any decision that eventually comes out of the process will go to the people of Northern Ireland for a vote in a referendum. It is the majority vote in a referendum that will count. That is consent in practice. From the hon. and learned Gentleman's perspective, that is a guarantee which means that, if one participates in the talks, an accommodation can be reached with which, we hope, both communities can live.

Mr. MacKay: That answer was welcome, because the Secretary of State will be aware that, after her interview with Mr. McCartan in the Belfast Telegraph on 28 August, there was real worry in the Province that when she said that consent was not necessarily even numerical or geographic it meant that there was some sliding from the previously announced policy that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland was the only one that counted. Will she re-emphasise that today and say that the interview was a mistake and should no longer be on the record?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that there will be no change in Northern Ireland without consent being the guiding principle and without the triple lock and the referendum. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute guarantee.
I do not disown the article, for the simple reason that what I was trying to express, and what I obviously expressed badly because of the furore that followed, is that my aim in the talks process is to build a level of consent that is more than just a simple majority on one side. I want a greater level of consensus and consent from the community so that we have a real chance to make the decisions that are reached work.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Mr. Michael J. Foster: What responses have been received in respect of the Government's consultations on the comprehensive spending review in Northern Ireland. [12409]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Government have invited contributions to the review of spending in Northern Ireland from the local political parties, the 26 Northern Ireland district councils and various bodies, including representatives of trade unions, business and commerce and the voluntary sector. Numerous written contributions

have been received which are being considered. I have also received views from contributors at a number of meetings.

Mr. Foster: What benefits does my hon. Friend believe that his extensive consultation process has had for his assessment of Northern Ireland's overall spending needs and priorities?

Mr. Murphy: The chief benefit is that, in line with our policy of open government, the exercise has given people in Northern Ireland an opportunity that they have not had for more than 25 years: the chance to comment on and influence how the Government spend their money and, more important, how we order our priorities in Northern Ireland. In addition, the detailed suggestions from across the entire community in Northern Ireland have proved to be exceptionally helpful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in her review.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that it is a real consultation process and that the present programme of the Government will be changed to take into account the representations that he has received from various delegations and parties in Northern Ireland? If so, will he confirm that political dogma will not override financial common sense? The Department of Education has proposed closing down, or at least is considering the closure of, the preparatory sections of voluntary grammar schools, Roman Catholic and Protestant, where it costs just £20,000 per child, and transferring those sections to state schools, where it costs the state £90,000 per child. Will the Government take into consideration those cost differences?

Mr. Murphy: I can confirm two things to the right hon. Gentleman: first, the comprehensive spending review will indeed be based on common sense and not on dogma and, secondly, there are no plans to close the schools that he has mentioned.

Mr. McGrady: Although the process towards political stability is all important and all absorbing, does the Minister agree that there is an opportunity, even with the peace that we do have, to direct the economy of Northern Ireland towards a more invigorating process, particularly on tourism? Has he had any representations during the financial review on the underfunding of the Northern Ireland tourist board and the industry, given the potential tourist developments open to them?

Mr. Murphy: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view. A strategy on tourism in Northern Ireland will be published soon. His concerns will be part of the comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister recall that during the previous ceasefire, we, in government, were able to reorganise spending because of savings on certain aspects of security because of the ending, temporarily, of hostilities by the IRA? Will he comment on the fact that, unfortunately, the current negotiations are continuing against a background in which Sinn Fein has not demanded that the IRA should give up its illegally held weapons and decommission has not already started?


Would it not have been better for the Prime Minister to understand that he could have got that concession out of Sinn Fein-IRA before he shook hands with its leaders?

Mr. Murphy: Only yesterday, there was a report from the independent commissioners on decommissioning. It will be available to all parties, including the hon. Gentleman's party. It is of course important to consider any savings that can be made as a direct result of the peace process.

Mr. Godman: As part of that exercise, can we expect an early review of the targeting social need programme? I would argue that such a review is essential to tackle the widespread poverty in both communities.

Mr. Murphy: I accept my hon. Friend's point; targeting social need will certainly be part of the comprehensive spending review and the backcloth to all the decisions that we take.

Beef Industry

Mr. Paice: If she will make a statement about the state of the beef industry in Northern Ireland. [12411]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): There has been a gradual recovery in consumer demand for Northern Ireland beef during 1997. In spite of that, average market prices for most of the year to date have remained below those in 1996 and the total return to beef farmers in 1997 is likely to fall by 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. compared with 1996.

Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for that response. Given that Northern Ireland already has a computerised database for cattle tracing and that such a system was a requirement of the veterinary advisory committee to the Commission for the implementation of a certified herds scheme, is it the Government's intention to seek a lifting of the export ban through a certified herds system for beef from Northern Ireland, as opposed to beef from the rest of the United Kingdom, and in advance of a system for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Worthington: It was a UK ban and the UK ban has to be lifted, but one of the proposals put forward is that an indication that herds are BSE free can be made through the system that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As parts of the United Kingdom qualify for coming out of the ban, that will occur; but Northern Ireland herds are currently at that stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Dismore: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 October. [12435]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, in the former Chancellor, there

is at least one person on the Opposition Benches who will make a decision on economic and monetary union in accordance with the national interest? As the former Chancellor is so at odds with his own leader, would he not be well advised at least to turn up for the next woolly jumper bonding session?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that we can build a national consensus behind the position that the Government set out on Monday. That position is: if it is successful and the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous, Britain should be part of a single currency; it is not realistic to join during this Parliament, but we should prepare now to be able to join early in the next Parliament if the single currency works and those economic tests are fulfilled. I am delighted that the former Chancellor—whatever his desire to move more quickly—can see the need to join across political parties and put a clear position to the country, because it is the national interest, not Conservative party divisions, that should determine the issue.

Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister recall being asked in the Evening Standard during the election campaign:
Will Labour introduce tuition fees for higher education?
Does he recall replying:
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education"?
Does he regret that now?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not, because I made it clear that we would await the outcome of the Dearing committee, which we did.

Mr. Hague: Is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister said one thing before the election and is now doing the opposite afterwards? Does he understand why hundreds of thousands of students and families feel misled? Is he regretting that and is he going to give them an apology?

The Prime Minister: No. I made it clear throughout that we should abide by the recommendations of the Dearing committee, which was set up by the Conservative Government. There is a very simple choice: either we decide to lift the cap on student numbers and get more finance to the front line of the universities, or we reform the system. We have to reform the system to improve the situation in higher education. That is what we have said throughout.

Mr. Hague: It would be one thing if the Prime Minister said that he would abide by the recommendations of the Dearing report if that was what he intended to do, but is he not ignoring that report by abolishing the maintenance grants for students from poorer families? Under his proposals, poorer families will be the hardest hit. Will not that make it harder for them to send their children to university? Is not that a breach of trust—and the wrong thing to do?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on every point. As a result of our proposals, the poorest families will be exempt from tuition fees—they


would not be under Dearing. What is more, repayments will begin at a higher level of income. That will help poorer families too. The truth is that the Conservative Government set up the Dearing committee and now the right hon. Gentleman is walking away from the recommendations of his own committee.

Mr. Hague: Does not the Prime Minister see that it is he who is walking away from those recommendations and that this is a matter of whom people can trust? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, it is. Does he recall being asked on the same day:
Will Labour tax pension funds?
Does he recall replying, also in the Evening Standard:
Our public expenditure plans require no extra taxation"?
Now that the right hon. Gentleman has clobbered pension funds with £5 billion of extra taxation a year, does he agree that he misled millions of future pensioners as well as future students?

The Prime Minister: No, we were tackling the Budget deficit left by the Conservative Government. I am intrigued by this line of questioning, as we were told on the news a little earlier that the right hon. Gentleman would ask me about monetary union. I just wonder why he is not asking me about monetary union.

Mr. Hague: It is my job to decide on the questions and the right hon. Gentleman's job to provide answers. He is the Prime Minister and he is meant to give the answers. If he does not think that these subjects are important to millions of families, he has another think coming.
Is it not becoming clear that this Government practise politics without values, politics without conscience, and politics without principles? Is not the lesson to be drawn by the whole country the fact that if people trust this Government today they pay for it tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: We are witnessing a Leader of the Opposition who is so scared that he does not even dare ask the question about monetary union which he said this lunchtime he was going to ask—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. I need some Zubes around here, with all these gentlemen shouting. May we have some calm, please?

The Prime Minister: There are some good candidates for that advice on the Conservative Benches, certainly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about principles. We remember the principles of the previous Government: the national health service, which they wrecked and undermined, the school system that they let down, their promise never to put VAT on fuel, which they then put on fuel. We remember a party so rottenly divided that it could not make up its mind on monetary union—and dare not ask a question about it today.

Mrs. Humble: I welcome today's announcement of additional funding for the national health service. It will mean an extra £12 million for the health authority covering my constituency, among others. What steps do

the Government intend to take to modernise the delivery of health care and to tackle the underlying causes of ill health? [12436]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: today's allocations amount, over this year and the next year, to more than £1.5 billion more for the health service under a Labour Government than under the Conservative spending plans.
We shall also invite every health authority and council in England to bid to become one of the new health action zones, which will work through joint management of budgets and one-stop health centres. The zones will bring together the professionals—general practitioners, pharmacists, community nurses, social workers and others—and the idea is that they will be able to find fresh, better ways of delivering health service care for the future.
We are not only putting in the extra investment that our health service needs—far in excess of that which would have been put in by the Conservatives—but modernising and improving the health service.

Mr. Ashdown: I will ask a question about monetary union. Is not the significance of the statement made by the Chancellor on Monday not as much its time scale as its clear and unequivocal expression of support in principle for the single currency and for Britain's joining it?
The Prime Minister believes that the Government will take that decision later rather than earlier. I think he is wrong; I think it will come at him much faster then he believes. He may believe that the decision, to be driven by the national interest, may be taken after the next general election, but will he at least admit that if it is in the national interest for it to be taken earlier, there is nothing to prevent that happening?

The Prime Minister: We simply do not believe that it is in the country's interests. That is why we said that we do not propose to enter a single currency in this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in principle we have said that there are benefits in a single currency and in a single market. That is precisely why we have set out the very clear statement that the Chancellor made on Monday—so that we have a framework in which we can move forward in future.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister not realise that it is illogical to say in one breath that this decision will be taken in the national interest and to say in the next that it will be driven by the electoral agenda? That makes no sense. Will the Prime Minister at least agree with the former Chancellor to this extent: that if the Government now set a clear and decisive lead on this matter, they have nothing to fear from a referendum, even an early one, because the decision to enter the single currency will enjoy such cross-party support in the House, and such wide support in the country, including from the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, that that referendum can be run as soon as the Government call it in the national interest?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but the crucial test is the national economic interest and at the present time, as we have made clear and as the Treasury assessment that


we published on Monday makes clear, our economy simply is not convergent with the other European economies. That is why it is not in our interests to join and, indeed, on the basis of the Treasury assessment, we shall not be convergent for some period of years. That is why the Chancellor set out a framework of stability where all the central issues of principle are answered, but where we give business a clear framework within which to plan ahead.
All the way through, it is not a political set of considerations that drive this; it is a determination of the national economic interest. That is what is important.
If you like, Madam Speaker, there are two groups of people with whom I would disagree although they hold perfectly principled positions. One says that we should go into a single currency, come what may, irrespective of the economic circumstances; I disagree with that. The other is the view now taken by the Conservative party: to rule out in principle going into a single currency even if it will bring economic benefits to Britain.
In my view, the sensible thing to say is that the test must be clear and unambiguous economic benefit to Britain, and that is the test on which we shall take the decision.

Mr. Cash: On Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, disgracefully, refused to address the political and constitutional implications of the single currency. Does the Prime Minister agree that the British people deserve an explanation of those constitutional political implications in principle? Will he give the British people a White Paper in which he sets those out? Does he accept that, if he does not do so, although he may be walking on water as far as domestic politics are concerned, he will drown in Europe?

The Prime Minister: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his help at the general election? Secondly, may I tell him that I would have been delighted to answer the constitutional issues if they had been put to me by the Leader of the Opposition—as we were told on the lunchtime news they would be?
The answer is very simple. Of course constitutional issues are at stake, but in the end the question is whether they operate as a constitutional bar to joining if the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous. Our answer to that is that there is no constitutional bar. What is the Opposition's answer?

Mrs. Ballard: My constituent, 19-year-old James Humphreys, received a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence for a first offence of purchasing Ecstasy tablets for friends. I do not condone his actions, but his imprisonment and exposure to hardened criminals could blight his whole future. Will the Prime Minister now respond to the chorus of advice, not least from senior police officers and judges, that a royal commission is urgently needed to look into the use and abuse of drugs in society and the appropriateness of mandatory prison sentencing? [12437]

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. I accept that she should want to raise an issue of concern to her constituency but, as far as I am aware, the individual concerned was charged and

convicted of intent to supply drugs. People who supply or intend to supply drugs should expect to be severely punished. In relation to the bigger issue of drug abuse, the Government already have an independent statutory adviser in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Secondly, we appointed recently an anti-drugs co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, a former chief constable, who will formulate, with the Government, a strategy to combat drug misuse. Given the number of young people who have died as a result of drug abuse over the past few years, we would be foolish to proceed on this matter other than with very great caution.

Mr. Hope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, nowadays, many young people leave school unprepared for taking on the challenges of becoming parents? Could not we develop the school curriculum to allow young people to learn more about parenthood in the classroom, better to prepare them for adult life?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it is extremely important that we try, in the course of the schooling that we give our children, to teach them about the obligations of parenthood. It would be best if those things were learnt in the home as well.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Labour party has announced that the Government will introduce legislation to incorporate the European convention on human rights into English law. Does the Prime Minister accept that
Democracy demands that the fundamental rules governing citizens' behaviour, and the fundamental rights protecting citizens' freedoms, should be decided by Parliament and not by the judges"?
I quote the late John Smith. Why are the Prime Minister and the Government ignoring those wise words? [12438]

The Prime Minister: I see the Foreign Secretary nodding his head—[Interruption.] Rather, the shadow Foreign Secretary—let us not be presumptuous. I must say, however, that the shadow Lord Chancellor agrees with that proposal. Perhaps there should be a little more bonding on that one.

Mr. Winterton: I was not there.

The Prime Minister: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman was a man of judgment. What is important about that issue is that it repatriates decisions to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. At the moment, people can sue under the European convention on human rights but they must go abroad—to Strasbourg—to do it. Our proposal means that they can exercise the right here at home, in our courts.

Mr. Winnick: Is not there the best chance since 1920 for peace in Northern Ireland arising from the current talks? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if all sides put forward their maximum demand and show no flexibility or accommodation, not only will it be extremely disappointing but it will be a tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland, the large majority of whom yearn—there is no other word to describe it—for a lasting peace? [12439]

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to all the work that he has done over


a number of years to speak out on these issues, which he has done with great commitment. What he says is absolutely true: the only way we shall get a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland is if people put the ancient enmities aside and realise that there is a broad measure of agreement on what a future political settlement may look like. If we ensure that the overwhelming majority of moderate people, not the small groups of extremists, determine the agenda, we shall get the result that we need.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: When I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group, there was widespread support for the director, who is now the Minister for Welfare Reform. Does that Minister have the Prime Minister's support for thinking the unthinkable and proposing pension improvements? He has consistently said that there can be no pension reform while the state earnings-related pension scheme remains, but the Prime Minister has declared himself in favour of SERPS. Are those positions consistent? [12440]

The Prime Minister: I have complete confidence in my right hon. Friend's duties. He will issue a Green Paper on the matter shortly and I suggest that the right hon. Lady read it.

Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the two dreadful recent firework accidents in the west midlands; one in which 14-year-old James Townsend suffered severe injuries to his hands because of a banger, the other in which 24 people were injured at a bonfire party. Does he agree that that proves that the Government were right to introduce tough new firework safety regulations and that we now need to move on to a proper, recognised training scheme for people who want to operate firework displays? In the run-up to bonfire night, we must ensure that the fun is put back into fireworks and the danger taken out of them. [12441]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The new firework regulations, which represent the toughest crackdown on dangerous fireworks in the history of the United Kingdom, will make a significant contribution to safety. I therefore share my hon. Friend's welcome for these measures. The Fireworks Bill that is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) will provide the Government with the capability to deal with a number of fireworks issues that are outside the scope of present regulations. I greatly welcome her initiative.

Mr. Jack: The Prime Minister has often spoken of his commitment to the national health service. I hope that he will agree that a plentiful supply of new doctors coming into the service is vital for its future. If he agrees with that proposition, what does he say to the British Medical Association, which has strongly criticised his proposals on tuition fees for those embarking on six-year medical courses, as the BMA believes that tuition fees will discourage many people from offering themselves for training as doctors?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. First, we have protected those coming into the

medical profession. Secondly, in contrast to the Government of whom he was a member, we are putting an extra £1.5 billion into the national health service.

Mr. Pickthall: Did my right hon. Friend notice that in yesterday's debate the Conservative spokesman on defence, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), said that anti-personnel land mines saved lives? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassert that the Government's policy is to save lives by getting rid of land mines, not finding excuses for them? [12442]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. We have made clear our commitment to a complete ban on anti-personnel land mines. We are banning them in the UK and we intend to sign the Ottawa convention in December banning them internationally. We accept that not all users of land mines will sign the Ottawa convention, but we will encourage them to do so and look for other ways in which to engage all states in a global ban. That is long overdue, it is right and it has the overwhelming support of the public, not only in Britain but throughout the world, and we shall play our full part in bringing it about.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Prime Minister and the Government consider urgently what financial assistance they may give Larne borough council in my constituency, which has been offered £2.5 million by the Millennium Commission to develop a spectacular sea cliff path at the Gobbins in Islandmagee? Matching funding of £2.5 million would impose too big a burden on local ratepayers and we may lose the opportunity to develop a national tourist attraction. Can the Prime Minister help to bring together central Government and local government so that we maximise the benefit of millennium funding? [12443]

The Prime Minister: Of course we shall consider carefully all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I know that he met Lord Dubs, the Minister responsible for environment and agriculture in the Northern Ireland Office, on 11 September to promote the case for funding the project. It was made clear at that meeting that the Government are enormously constrained in funding terms as to what we can provide. However, as we promised at the meeting, officials from the Department of the Environment and Agriculture are today meeting Larne borough council to consider how best the council might advance the project. We support the project, but we must try to do so within public finance constraints.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the footballs that British kids play with are made in Sialkot in Pakistan by other children—many of them as young as five or six—who work as bonded labour in sweated conditions for as little as lop an hour? Will he do all he can to ensure that the brave initiative taken by the Secretary of State for International Development and FIFA to bring an end to that abuse is carried through as quickly as possible and is extended to other industries that use sweated labour to produce sporting goods for the British market? [12444]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I welcome very much the initiative taken by the Secretary of State, who is in Oslo today attending a conference on child labour. I also welcome the fact that FIFA has got behind the initiative.
As a result of the funded initiative that the Government have announced, we hope to help some 7,000 children move from bonded labour to proper education and skills training. This is a problem not just in Pakistan but throughout the developing world, and we shall do everything we can to build on and advance the initiative. I think that it will have the support of the vast majority of people.

Mr. Whittingdale: Can the Prime Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Social Security said in January that she would not implement any cuts in single parent benefit and yet, only a few weeks after the general election, introduced legislation that will cut single parent benefit? Is that not another breach of trust by the Government? [12445]

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Government he supported introduced the cut. The Secretary of State made it absolutely clear, before and after the election, that we must keep within the tough spending guidelines we set out because of the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. However, we have introduced a very important £200 million programme for single parents. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman take up the cut with those who introduced it: the previous Conservative Government.

Dr. Starkey: My right hon. Friend may be aware that in my Milton Keynes constituency a project of reparative youth justice has been in operation for some time. It has demonstrated considerable success in getting young people and their parents to face responsibility for their crimes and cut the rate of reoffending. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that the Home Secretary's proposals to extend that sort of approach to youth justice nationwide are implemented as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I agree. My hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary gave his full support today to extending that scheme. It is part of a series of measures that are being taken to tighten the juvenile justice system and part of a system to ensure that final warnings are given to young people so that they know exactly where they stand. It is also part of our proposals to halve the time it takes to bring juvenile offenders to court to be dealt with and properly punished. It is one of a series of measures that allow us to address the causes of crime through better employment and skills training for young people and to ensure that those who commit crimes and terrorise people are dealt with properly and firmly through the criminal justice system.

Harrogate and Knaresborough

Mr. Willis: When he intends to visit Harrogate and Knaresborough. [12446]

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I intend to continue to make visits to all regions of the country.

Mr. Willis: I assure the Prime Minister that he would be extremely welcome in Harrogate and Knaresborough. If he visited my constituency, he would discover one of the finest conference and exhibition businesses in the United Kingdom, which is wholly public sector-owned by the local authority. To protect some 5,000 jobs and more than 300 businesses, we need to build a new exhibition hall, but without trading credit approvals—which is the best way to secure finance for such local government development—those jobs cannot be protected. Is the Prime Minister prepared to support greater public sector involvement in new exhibition facilities?

The Prime Minister: I think I would be in some trouble if I just answered yes to that question. The Chancellor is sitting next to me. We will consider the case that has been made very carefully. I know Harrogate very well and the tremendous facilities that are there but, as the hon. Gentleman would expect me to say, any help that is given must be given within the financial constraints under which the Government operate.

Engagements

Mr. Savidge: As I am the first Scottish Member to ask the Prime Minister a question since the result of our historic referendum, does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the clear and decisive mandate that we received from the people of Scotland, Parliament should proceed as swiftly as possible to establish the Scottish Parliament? [12447]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were delighted with the result in the Scottish referendum and today the programme of constitutional change is being taken further with details of proposals for London, so that London people can have a proper, strategic authority and an elected mayor to oversee the issues of concern to people in London. It is all part of a process of bringing government closer to the people, ending the era of big government and ensuring that we get a constitution fit for the 21st century.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does the Prime Minister recall that, almost exactly five years ago, several Conservative Members went out on a limb to help the coal industry? Is he aware that the coal contracts come up for re-signing in the spring and that if there is not a satisfactory agreement several pits could close? Does he think that many hon. Members on Government Benches will go out on a limb to help the coal industry this time round? [12448]

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has always done in support of the coal industry, although any lectures from the Conservative party on the future of the coal industry are a little rich. Of course we understand the problem that the particular company he refers to faces, but we have to ensure that the prices that are being offered are properly competitive.

Magistrates Courts

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the organisation of magistrates courts. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is making a similar statement in another place.
Magistrates and magistrates courts are critical to our criminal justice system. There are now more than 30,000 lay magistrates, and 90 stipendiary or professional magistrates, divided between the metropolitan stipendiary bench, serving inner London, and the provincial bench, serving the rest of England and Wales. The magistracy deals with about 97 per cent. of criminal offences prosecuted in England and Wales. It also has important family and local licensing jurisdictions. That is why it is vital that they are supported by policies that look to the next century—not back to the 19th century.
Arrangements for the management and funding of magistrates courts were enacted by Parliament in 1949. The previous Government brought forward proposals designed to clarify and improve the accountability of the magistrates courts system, through part IV of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. A statutory responsibility was put on local magistrates courts committees, comprising magistrates selected by their colleagues, for the efficient and effective administration of the courts in their areas. It established the role of a justices chief executive as chief administrative officer responsible to each MCC. It also provided new powers for the Lord Chancellor, including one to initiate proposals for amalgamating MCC areas and implementing them where, after consultation, he considers that an amalgamation would be likely to lead to an overall increase in the efficiency of the administration of the courts in the area.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is committed to making these arrangements serve modern needs in support of both lay and professional magistrates alike. The hard work and dedication to justice of the lay magistracy is undoubted. We have no plans for a replacement of the lay magistracy with stipendiary magistrates. Our aim is to deploy the resources of the lay and the stipendiary magistracy to best effect.
Our objectives therefore are, first, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates courts and, secondly, to reduce delay in the time taken for cases to be taken through those courts, and thereby honour our manifesto commitment. My right hon. and noble Friend's announcement today will help achieve these objectives through improved co-ordination and communication between the different agencies working in the criminal justice system, so as to improve the management of the system as a whole; better distribution and use of the public resources that the Government commit to the magistrates courts as an integral part of the processes for delivering justice; and better and more flexible deployment of professional judicial resources.
The provisions of the 1994 Act have yet to be implemented in a way that achieves significant improvement in the organisation and management of the magistrates courts throughout England and Wales. For too long we have been driving with the brakes on. We need to

create a modern structure, which provides the right local management within a national framework. We will continue to look afresh across the structures, processes and objectives of the criminal justice system. That process is not yet complete and it may produce still more radical options. But there is work that needs to be started now, and much can be achieved using the powers we already have.
There are 96 MCCs in England and Wales. They cover very different geographical areas, in many instances unrelated to the areas covered by other agencies involved in the criminal justice system and serving widely differing numbers of magistrates, staff and court buildings. As Her Majesty's chief inspector of the magistrates courts service states in her annual report for 1996–97, which has today been lodged in the Library:
In several of our 1996/97 inspection reports, we concluded that small MCC areas were managing their affairs competently within the grant allocated to them. However, without detracting from their achievement, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the existence of so many small organisational units is not in the best interest of a well-functioning Service nation-wide. In our view, overall improvement will only be achieved through a structure with fewer MCCs which are comparable in terms of workload and resources.
In the Government's view, there need to be fewer, and larger, MCC areas, providing a more consistent basis for the administration and management of the courts, and a much greater alignment with the local government areas served by other agencies in the criminal justice system—for example, the Crown Prosecution Service and police authorities—wherever that is appropriate. That requires a substantial programme of amalgamations of MCC areas.
Such an outcome is likely to lead to an overall increase in efficiency, both for the management of the courts themselves and for the wider criminal justice system. A greater coincidence of boundaries between the agencies should lead to administrative benefits, including the implementation of consistent and coherent policies throughout the area, for example, in fast-tracking particular types of case, which depends on effective co-operation between the various criminal justice agencies.
I have been struck in government by the extent to which delivery of objectives on which everyone is agreed in principle depends on effective co-operation among a large number of different agencies. Immediately after the general election, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to work out proposals for dividing the CPS into 42 areas to match existing police authority areas. She did so, and those proposals were announced in a written answer on 21 May 1997. Therefore, we have 42 CPS areas, 43 police forces and 96 separate independent administrative units in the magistrates courts system. I am not trying to establish administrative symmetry for its own sake, but I have to ask whether 96 separate administrative units in the magistrates courts are really necessary.
I want to make it plain that this is not about losing local courts. It is about being open-minded about the best way of providing administrative support to them. We are not planning mindlessly to sweep away tradition; we are striving for a justice system at least as good as any in the world. There is much that is good about our current arrangements, not least the involvement of intelligent,


committed volunteers as magistrates. What we want to do is build on the high quality which is already there, to secure the best possible service for the British people.
We are committed to local justice. Many decisions, for example about providing courthouses to match need, will properly remain to be taken at local level, but justice delivered locally is not the same as justice organised locally. In my clear view, local management requires a national framework.
The voluntary amalgamations that have occurred to date have shown the benefits that can be achieved. They include a fresh approach to the organisation of MCCs, with a reduction in the number of sub-committees and the establishment of clear levels of delegation to officers; better strategic planning in relation to the use of magistrates, staff and buildings, with an estate of sufficient size and flexibility to make the task mean something; better performance monitoring and the networking of performance initiatives; access to specialist staff, which the individual committees could not previously have supported; and the ability to review and standardise staffing policies and bring about other administrative efficiencies through rationalisation of functions previously duplicated by staff within the individual committees.
Our policy, therefore, is to promote a reduction in the number of MCC areas, which will involve a greater alignment of the MCC areas with those areas served by the Crown Prosecution Service and by the police. That provides a model and is the starting point for our consideration of MCC areas. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will issue consultation papers on the amalgamation of MCC areas with a view to being in a position to make an amalgamation order under section 32 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 where that is justified.
Our first priority is to consider the position of the metropolitan MCCs, which currently include the largest number of small MCCs. We believe that the greatest scope for the largest efficiency gains lies in pooling their resources. We shall start the necessary consultative process with a view to having new shadow MCCs up and running on 1 April 1998, with a second phase on 1 April 1999.
In the shire counties, there remain some parts of the country where MCC areas do not align with the police and CPS boundaries, and, as appropriate, we shall introduce proposals on those MCCs.
Greater London provides its own problems, substantially because of the effects of the abolition of the Greater London council and successive changes to local government in that area. The Lord Chancellor has yet to receive and consider the interim review of the outer London strategic management body. However, the service cannot afford to wait until 1999 before any consideration is given to the way forward for outer London. We are examining appropriate ways to organise magistrates courts across the huge area of the metropolitan constabulary. If we are to achieve our national objectives for the service in London as a whole, we shall need to propose changes that tie in with those being introduced by the CPS in the area.
We have also been giving careful consideration to a better and more flexible use of the professional judicial resources available in the magistrates courts. Stipendiary magistrates are, by statute, appointed either to London or to a particular commission area: they do not have a national jurisdiction. We shall consult shortly on the desirability of creating a single, unified stipendiary bench that would enhance the efficiency with which stipendiary magistrates could respond to changes in national work load patterns. We shall also consult on whether the role that stipendiary magistrates now fulfil could be more accurately reflected in a change of judicial title: they are, after all, professional judges, and the word "magistrate" is most naturally associated in the public's mind with the lay magistracy.
We have been persuaded by representations from, among others, the Magistrates Association that our policy should be to encourage greater separation within the senior management of the magistrates courts, in particular between their administrative and legal functions. Justices clerks and all those advising magistrates in individual cases need to be able to concentrate on this important function.
Managing a modern magistrates courts service is an administrative function which requires dedicated administrators fully engaged on that task. To improve the status of those who provide legal advice to magistrates, we shall consult on the proposal that, in future, court clerks should be professionally qualified either as a barrister or as a solicitor. If it would help, we are prepared to consider a change of title to recognise their proper role in a modern magistrates courts system.
It is also our policy to ensure that dual appointments, where the same individual is both the justices chief executive and justices clerk with substantive legal responsibilities, will become exceptional. In any event, amalgamations will lead to MCC areas of a sufficient size to support a stand-alone justices chief executive and the appropriate number of justices clerks for the area.
Let me now deal with matters that are consequential to what I have said so far. Today, I lodged in the Library of the House a copy of the magistrates courts service inspectorate's report on the review of the proposal to amalgamate Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull magistrates courts committees. The chief inspector identifies the efficiency gains that could accrue from the rationalisation of the senior management structures in the area. She refers to the potential for new strategic thinking, reduced management overheads, sharing of initiatives, greater staff specialisation and better use of staff generally. She recommends that Ministers should actively pursue a reduction in the number of MCC areas, and that a new national strategy be developed to contribute to the better functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole. She does not recommend that Ministers proceed with the particular compulsory amalgamation of the three MCCs at this time. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has broadly accepted her conclusions. He does not intend to proceed with the proposal to amalgamate the three MCCs of Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull, as that proposal is not wholly consistent with the strategy that I have outlined so far.
Associated with those changes will be other measures that we shall introduce to improve the national framework. The Department is currently reviewing the grant allocation formula; we intend to introduce a new


formula for 1999–2000, which will be better able to meet needs while recognising performance, and which will distribute the available resources more fairly. We shall introduce a requirement for MCCs in relation to the reports and plans that they are to produce and the performance standards that they are to maintain. Their operations will be supported by new information technology services currently being negotiated with suppliers, which will provide a more effective means of delivering information across the criminal justice system.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will shortly be issuing consultation papers proposing the amalgamation of the seven MCCs in the west midlands area, and the five MCCs in Merseyside. If those proposals are implemented, they will result in MCCs in those two areas with common boundaries with the police authorities and new CPS areas. We will follow that up with further consultation papers as and when appropriate, proposing further amalgamations when that might achieve the benefits that I have described. I shall write to the chairmen of the relevant MCCs inviting them to submit proposals and indicating when, in the absence of their proposals, we intend to launch our own consultation under section 32(5) of the Act. As I have said, we shall also issue a consultation paper shortly on unifying the metropolitan and provincial stipendiary benches.
With today's announcement, the Government are embarking on a plan of action to improve the operation of the magistrates courts. We are determined to create a modern structure that will provide the right local management within a national framework. That will enable the courts to play their part in a properly co-ordinated criminal justice system, better able to deliver our promise to reduce delay throughout the system.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I have no quarrel with the broad objectives set out in the statement. I take this opportunity to salute the work of the voluntary lay magistracy, which deals with the vast majority of criminal cases.
To marry the boundaries of police, CPS and MCC areas must be sensible. Does the Minister accept, however, that magistrates courts represent local provision of justice? Can he assure the House that his plans will not lead to the closing of a huge number of magistrates courts, particularly in rural areas, and the distancing of courts from the local communities that they serve? Can he tell us today precisely how many courts he expects to be closed following the announcements?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no need to change the title "stipendiary magistrate", which is a clear and easily understandable term? I urge him, however, to consider appointing more such magistrates, especially if they are to have jurisdiction right across England and Wales.
I suspect that there is a drawer in the Government Chief Whip's office marked "Statements that we do not need to make, but which will be required when we need to delay the business of the House". Was not the real purpose of making this largely uncontroversial statement today to allow the Prime Minister to sneak out of the Chamber so that he could avoid coming face to face with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who is about to take his seat—having won a memorable by-election victory over the Prime Minister's personally

chosen candidate, despite two well-publicised visits by the right hon. Gentleman to the constituency during the by-election campaign?
If the Minister genuinely wanted to make a statement touching on his Department today, why did he not make one to the House about his proposals to reform legal aid—which have far-reaching social and legal consequences for the people of this country—rather than wasting 15 or 16 minutes drawing out a largely uncontroversial set of words about magistrates courts?

Mr. Hoon: It is always difficult for the Government to get it right for the Opposition. Had we chosen to deal with the matter by way of a written question, tucked away in some obscure page of Hansard, no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) would have been leaping to his feet complaining that we were not making a statement. We have made a statement and given hon. Members the opportunity to ask questions of the Government on this important matter relating to the delivery of local justice.
The hon. and learned Member will know that 97 per cent. of all criminal cases begin and end in magistrates courts, so he must be aware of the importance of the proposals. He says that he has no quarrel with the Government's broader objectives and I am grateful for his support, but it is important that he emphasises to Back-Bench Conservative Members that court closures are not a necessary consequence of the proposals. Whether courts should close is primarily a matter for local magistrates courts committees. They take that decision. It is determined at local level and it is important that it stays at local level.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that the only role that the Lord Chancellor has in this matter is to determine an appeal, in the event of one being made—that is the limit of the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction. It is important that, instead of trying to make a few cheap local headlines, the hon. and learned Gentleman reflects the generality of the law in this sector.
I was disappointed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not recognise the need to change the title of stipendiary magistrate. We are determined to consult on the matter. The term "stipendiary magistrate" is not well recognised; it is not recognised as being a judicial office. It is important that we try to bring up to date the titles that we give to people, particularly where they deal with as important a matter as criminal jurisdiction.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that he should be careful about amalgamating magistrates courts in his constituency, in mine and in other parts of Britain because amalgamation and making things bigger does not always work? Invariably, it is the opposite. To find out that that is true, we have to look only at the changing of the national health service in the 1970s under the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), at the local authority reorganisation and, latterly, at the closing of tribunal areas that are controlled by the Benefits Agency, which has resulted in a massive backlog of people wanting to be represented in those places.
However my hon. Friend deals with the matter, he has to bear in mind the fact that, although, as he says, magistrates decide whether courts remain open, they need


money and that if there is a shortage of money, those courts will undoubtedly close. Labour Members represent many rural areas now, as a party needs to in order to achieve a majority in the House of Commons. Remember, there is a vast difference between the anonymity of a city and the villages and small towns represented by Labour Members.

Mr. Hoon: I have always been most grateful for the thoughtful and well-considered advice that my hon. Friend has tendered to me over many years. I assure him that the proposals for the amalgamation of magistrates courts committees will not have the slightest effect in his constituency in Derbyshire and in my constituency in Nottinghamshire because, in those areas, there is already consistency between the magistrates courts committee, the police authority area and the CPS. We are trying to introduce that best practice, already operating in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, throughout the rest of the country.

Mr. John Burnett: Magistrates dispense justice in the community, and that should be done and be seen to be done in the community. We are concerned that there are likely to be closures of magistrates courts, especially in rural areas. What criteria are considered by the Government when an appeal is lodged against closure?

Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear that, as I have already said, decisions on courthouse closures are primarily matters for local magistrates courts committees. The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises the importance of justice being done and being seen to be done in the community. However, he is in some difficulty in arguing that such decisions should be taken anywhere else. If he came to me and said that he would not like a particular court to be closed on appeal to the Lord Chancellor, he would be saying that central Government should interfere in those local decisions. It is only when a local decision to close a court is made that the matter ends up on the Lord Chancellor's desk. In those circumstances, we are guaranteeing local justice.
I appreciate that there are appeals to the Lord Chancellor, but there are no specific criteria and each appeal has to be dealt with on its merits, which will depend on the grounds of the appeal. I can give the hon. Gentleman some of the considerations that will be taken into account. They are, in particular, the provision of modern facilities, facilities for the disabled, security arrangements in relation to violent offenders, and separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses. There is also the question of delays. How can we ensure the provision of courtrooms that are best suited to enable cases to be listed in a manner that will achieve the Government's aim of reducing delays in the criminal justice system? We must take account of necessary renovations to bring the courthouse in question up to a modern standard. We also recognise the distance that people will have to travel, the

cost of that travel and the time that is taken to complete the return journey. Such a range of factors is taken into account.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. As is clear to the House, many hon. Members wish to put questions. If I am to attempt to call even two thirds of them, I must have brief questions and, especially, brief answers.

Mr. Ross Cranston: What advantages does my hon. Friend see in the redrawing of the boundaries? He said that he was not simply redrawing them for administrative tidiness. What benefits will arise by having the boundaries of the Crown Prosecution Service coincide with the magistrates courts area and police authority boundaries?

Mr. Hoon: The primary aim is to secure maximum co-operation between the different parts of the criminal justice system, leading to a reduction in the number of participants in consultation and in the amount of paperwork to be circulated, and to a more effective presentation of the concerns of magistrates courts. If we are to achieve our manifesto commitment to fast-track justice, we must ensure that the different agencies involved in the criminal justice system work consistently and coherently together. The proposals will achieve that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the composition of the magistrates bench, while it is important to try to ensure a broad spectrum of occupation and background, the political views of applicants for the magistracy should be ignored? In that context, does he understand the dismay that has been caused by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor who told the Magistrates Association that, all things being equal, if there were an imbalance he would choose Labour voters for magistrates?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is important for the magistracy to reflect the local community. It was for that reason that his Government began to ask magistrates about their political allegiance. That was to try to ensure the consistent reflection of the needs of a local community. All that the Lord Chancellor said in the speech to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers is that it is important in reflecting the balance of a local community to have a balance in the political views of the magistracy. However, that information was first collected by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government.

Ms Beverley Hughes: I welcome the proposals outlined today, particularly for the amalgamation of MCC areas, the administrative benefits of which I am sure we can all see, but will my hon. Friend say a little more about how he expects those changes to reduce delays in the system, with particular reference to the new IT services that he mentioned?

Mr. Hoon: Reducing delays in the criminal justice system is a centrepiece of the Government's policy and it was a centrepiece of our manifesto. It is crucial that, in trying to reduce delay, we ensure that the various agencies


work together. IT strategy is part of that. For the moment, unfortunately, Britain has a considerable number of fully computerised systems—something like 95 of the 96 MCCs have computer systems—but there are five different systems, they are aging and, due to a lack of standardisation in their design, they cannot easily support links between magistrates courts and other organisations in the criminal justice system. That is why we have proposed that there should be a new national standard information system service, which will provide information systems to support all MCCs in England and Wales and facilitate electronic linking and, hence, a speedier flow of information between magistrates courts and other organisations in the criminal justice system. By doing that, we will speed up the system of justice.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the Government are seeking to reduce delay and they have said that they will halve the time taken to bring what are often called fast-track cases to court, but have the Government yet identified the length of time that particular types of cases currently take to come to court so that we may know in future whether they have managed to halve it?

Mr. Hoon: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not spent more time studying the Government's manifesto which sets out that the average time taken to bring a case before the courts is some four and a half months. We strongly believe that it is crucial that we reduce that average time.

Ms Christine Russell: For the 17 years before I arrived in this place I was a serving magistrate, and I believe that the office of justice of the peace is one of the oldest offices in the land, dating back to the 14th century. This afternoon, my hon. Friend has told us that 97 per cent. of all cases are dealt with in the magistrates court. Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance today that that will continue and that there is no intention to reduce the number of lay magistrates, replacing them with stipendiaries?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to say that I said that some 97 per cent. of all cases begin and end in the magistrates court. There are some 30,000 lay magistrates in Britain. In contrast, there are 90 stipendiary magistrates. Whether there should be additional stipendiary magistrates is clearly a matter for the particular MCC, which must seek the Lord Chancellor's approval before such a decision is taken. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no current policy to replace those 30,000 volunteers, who provide their expertise generally free of charge to the system, with stipendiary magistrates.

Mr. John M. Taylor: It is true that the Lord Chancellor cannot close a court on his own initiative, but he has the statutory power to merge MCC areas. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the number is now down from about 105 to 96. What is the hon. Gentleman's ultimate target? What would he like to get the figure down to?
While I am on my feet, I should like to say that I share the appreciation of magistrates, and I note with some satisfaction that Solihull will not amalgamate with Birmingham and Coventry.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that question and for the hon. Gentleman's support, such as it was. The target was set out clearly in my statement; it is to achieve consistency with the police authority areas and the revised CPS areas, in order to ensure that we have a consistent administrative system for the courts throughout the country.

Helen Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend's support for continuing the system of lay magistrates and his view that the bench should represent all sections of the community. Does he accept, however, that such broad representation is not always the case? What plans does he have to encourage a wider cross-section of people to apply to become magistrates? Will he also consider having discussions with employers to make them more sympathetic to requests from their employees for time off to perform that vital public duty?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is indeed important that as many people as possible apply for the important position of magistrate. Sadly, I suspect that too often the message is rather like light from a distant star, in that many people are deterred from applying because they believe that they will not be selected and approved. In many parts of the country, however, MCCs are crying out for suitable volunteers. We have encouraged those committees to place advertisements in newspapers to try to find as many people as possible who are willing to undertake those important responsibilities in our communities.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Minister look at the economies of scale that may be appropriate in urban conurbations, but which have quite a different result in rural constituencies such as mine? There is already concern among magistrates in the small towns of Cullompton, Tiverton and Honiton in my constituency. In the Cullompton magistrates court, we already take the overspill from the city of Exeter. Will he ensure that the guidelines reflect the need for geographic spread, not least because police officers attached to local police stations will incur the loss of much greater parts of their day in travelling further distances?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Lady has very precisely expressed the importance of local decision making. Decisions taken in a rural area by a magistrates courts committee selected from that area will be different from decisions taken in a more urban area by the magistrates courts committee there, which is why it is so important that those decisions remain locally based. Committees in rural areas are able to reflect considerations and circumstances that are very different from those in more urban ones.

Mr. John Gunnell: The logic of my hon. Friend's statement is that he will eventually be looking to form a West Yorkshire MCC. Will the current committee or a West Yorkshire committee decide on closures? Will he be giving any guidance to the committees that will be formed on the criteria that they should apply? I am concerned about the future of local


courts. There are many local magistrates who do a good job who would be very reluctant to travel the distance to a larger court in a larger place.

Mr. Hoon: I hope that—after hearing the statement, which will be communicated to all magistrates courts committees—the reaction of areas that currently are not consistent with police authority areas and CPS areas will be to introduce proposals to achieve such consistency. I hope also that we can achieve many of the statement's objectives without resorting to the powers that are available in statute to the Lord Chancellor. If it is necessary, however, we will use the powers that are available under current law.
I hope that, as we use those powers, we will provide the consistency that will offer comfort not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) but to hon. Members from across the country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is surely aware that, although decisions relating to closure of magistrates courts are taken locally, allocation of resources very often can have a very heavy influence on the decisions that are taken. Will he take it from me that, although the magistrates court in Macclesfield requires quite a lot of improvement—in fact, we require additional facilities—there is overwhelming support for the court to continue there? Does he appreciate the unique nature—as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—of the problems facing many rural areas?

Mr. Hoon: I said in my statement that the Department is currently reviewing the grant allocation formula and that we intend to introduce a new formula for 1999–2000, which we believe will be better able to meet the needs while recognising performance and which will distribute available resources more fairly. It is clear that that must take account of the very different circumstances in rural areas as opposed to urban areas.

Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, given the importance of the changes he is introducing and the speed with which they are being introduced, there would be considerable merit in having a moratorium on closures, particularly because financial issues often drive the closure argument? Such a moratorium could remain in place until the funding has been reviewed and these important changes are brought about.
Does my hon. Friend recognise that efficiency must not simply be a transfer of costs from one Government body to another or from one Government body to other parts of society? Does he recognise that it may be less costly for magistrates but more expensive for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police? The Government need to see that the issues are addressed in the round and accept that judicial efficiency is not necessarily monetary efficiency.

Mr. Hoon: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but I repeat that it is not for the Government or the Lord Chancellor's Department to announce a moratorium on court closures. The decision on closures is taken by the local magistrates courts committee. In judging appeals on

these matters, it is important that we take account of the wider cost picture. My hon. Friend is right to say that it would be absurd if, in the interest of a short-term saving over a particular courthouse, the rest of the Government were faced with larger costs. I accept that point entirely.

Mr. David Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know—because I have told him—of the great anger in Ripon at the proposal to close Ripon magistrates court and to transfer its functions to Harrogate. That will be a blow to the regeneration of the city centre, it will make justice less accessible in a wide rural area and it represents a transfer of costs from the public to the private purse. When the appeal comes to the Lord Chancellor, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that it is examined in the context of the regeneration of Ripon and the rural area and ensure that a wide and careful scrutiny is made of the proposals put to him?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in drawing the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department to the court in his area. I suspect that he holds the record for the number of letters written about any court. I have no doubt that there will be plenty of Conservative Members, and possibly some Labour Members, who will want to emulate his activities. I can only repeat that when considering an appeal carefully, it is necessary to take into account a wide variety of factors. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will take into account the factors that he has mentioned.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that, in the county palatine of Lancashire, certain matters affecting the magistracy, such as the appointment of magistrates, are dealt with by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and not the Lord Chancellor's Department. Are there any aspects in the issues that he has announced today that will require consultation by that Department at the same time as his own Department?

Mr. Hoon: Not that I am aware of.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Is the Minister aware of the deep disappointment in Bromsgrove at the decision to close our magistrates court? Can he confirm that when I took a delegation to see him, he told us that if my local district council was willing to offer a subsidy to keep the court open, he would consider the matter? Will he confirm that, like me, he has received no notification of that offer from Bromsgrove district council?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Lady has also been assiduous in making clear her concerns about Bromsgrove magistrates court, although she has not written quite as many letters as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I agree with her point willingly.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: I welcome the Minister's statement about improved efficiency, but I want to return to the loss of rural courthouses, which has been raised by several other hon. Members. In my constituency, the rural courthouses were closed by the previous Government. They have already gone, so the conversion of Conservative Members to the cause that we have supported for some years can best be described, charitably, as welcome hypocrisy.
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems with the effectiveness and efficiency of the magistracy is the lack of volunteers and that it is the processes and procedures used that deter many people from coming forward? We have deeply unrepresentative benches with many members of the community and many groups being excluded. An open and accountable selection process would lead to more people volunteering and more confidence in the system and people would no longer feel that getting on the bench depended on what society or secret club one belonged to.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I dealt with a similar question a few minutes ago, and I repeat that sometimes the message takes a long time to get through. He has set out accurately the concerns of many people at the way in which magistrates are selected. I hope to reassure him that considerable efforts are being made to encourage applications to the magistracy and to ensure that the system is as open and transparent as it can be.
If my hon. Friend has any particular concerns, I should be grateful if he would write to me about them. I will pursue them vigorously.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Minister recall meeting me a few weeks ago to discuss the proposed closure of the court in my constituency? He subsequently upheld that closure, leaving my constituency, which is 100 miles long from north to south, with one magistrates court. That is not access to justice.
May I also ask the hon. Gentleman why his statement did not contain a single word about access to justice and upholding the standard of justice?

Mr. Hoon: My recollection is that I referred consistently to access to justice, but if that is not the case I assure the hon. Member that running throughout the Government's proposals for reforming the legal system is a commitment to access to justice. It is vital that that remains the case.
The hon. Gentleman's constituents have access to other courts not necessarily within the boundaries of his constituency, so his point about there being just one courthouse in a particular constituency does not paint the entire picture. I repeat that questions about whether a particular court should remain open or be closed are determined primarily at the local level.

Mr. David Lock: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, may I raise with him the position of justices chief executives who are also justices

clerks? Does he agree that the administration of the courts that handle 31 out of 32 of all criminal justice cases should not be left to people who spend the majority of their day in court, but should be the responsibility of accessible and full-time administrators? That would ensure that justice is speedily done.

Mr. Hoon: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The role of the justices chief executives, as head of the service, is essential in providing a clear line of command between the magistrates courts committee and its staff, and in directing the implementation of the MCC's plans and objectives. The justices clerk's role is as a legal adviser to the magistrates. Successful management requires a clearly delineated role for justices clerks and the justices chief executives. Dual appointments inevitably risk a degree of compromise in that matter, with consequential complaints about the lack of impartiality.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: John Randall Esq., for Uxbridge.

BILLS PRESENTED

SUPREME COURT (OFFICES)

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, supported by Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the qualification for appointment as, and tenure of office of, Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 68].

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Davies and Mr. George Howarth, presented a Bill to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 so as to alter the method used in Great Britain for electing Members of the European Parliament; to make other amendments of enactments relating to the election of Members of the European Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 69].

Hare Coursing

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make hare coursing illegal.
This is the fourth time I have attempted to bring in such a Bill. It may be unusual for a Member of Parliament to introduce a Bill in the fervent hope that it is rendered irrelevant by another Bill in the very near future, but that is what I am doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has the enormous privilege of introducing on 28 November a Bill that seeks to enact one of the most popular measures any Back Bencher could possibly initiate, and I wish him well with it.
The purpose of my Bill is partly to counter the propaganda of blood sports aficionados over recent months, which has sought to give the impression that the Bill to abolish hunting with dogs is concerned almost solely with fox hunting. Foxes, they maintain, are vermin and, therefore, hunters are doing us a favour by pulling foxes to bits. Recent studies have shown that foxes spend much of their lives destroying vermin, but that is by the way.
Hunting with dogs also involves deer and hares. The hare is by no means vermin. It is a spectacularly beautiful and magical animal and it is already under stress as a species because of changes in agricultural practice. Animals have to be captured and transported cross country to provide the quarry for some hare coursing events—indeed, sometimes they are captured in and brought from Ireland for the purpose.
At Altcar in my constituency, the Waterloo cup is held every February, at which time many hares are breeding. West Lancashire has many reasons to be proud of itself, but the area is ashamed that it is forced to host the Waterloo cup. West Lancashire and Sefton councils have cross-party agreements to try to end the activity in their area, but a proposed West Lancashire byelaw was stifled by the last Government. I am hopeful that legislation will make it unnecessary for the council to go through that procedure again.
At most coursing events, hares are beaten out of long grass, one at a time, on to the course. When they pass the dog handler—the slipper—he releases two dogs, which compete to catch the hare before it reaches the longer grass at the far end of the course. Points are awarded for the dogs' success in turning the hare away from its escape. Of course, many hares are caught and pulled to pieces. The fact that hares escape is used as an excuse for the event, although the presence of illegal gangs in surrounding fields sometimes ensures that escaping hares run a second gauntlet. Unlike other forms of hunting, the dogs—normally greyhounds—are faster than the hare and they usually catch up with it fairly rapidly.
Legal hare coursing is linked to illegal hare coursing. Men with dogs frequent farm land in casual pursuit of hares. When farmers try to stop it, they are often threatened with dire consequences and farmers are known to shoot hares on their land so as to keep casual coursers away. In recent years in my constituency, hares have been torn to pieces next to a primary school, with the children watching horrified from the playground; and one small girl saw, twice in one day and from her own garden, hares

killed by lurchers. It is impossible to stamp out those illegal horrors while organised events are sanctioned by the law and thereby afforded some moral licence.
Organised hare coursing is the last of the spectator blood sports. It belongs with bear baiting, bull baiting and cock fighting—all of which have been properly outlawed in this country for many years.
The spectacle of large numbers of city dwellers massed along the banking at Altcar, copiously supplied with booze and baying for blood, is a particularly unpleasant one. It is this spectator aspect of hare coursing that makes it the most loathsome of all blood sports.
The excuses made by blood sports fans are universally ridiculous. I have been told by a gentleman living in Manningtree in Essex, in one of many rather unpleasant letters that I have received—none of them from my constituents—that hares are a pursuit species—that is a new one! Apparently, they evolved to be chased. Furthermore, they are not traumatised by the chase. Clearly, this gentleman has psychoanalysed hares to discover that truth.
Coursing is excused also because of its long and distinguished history. It dates back, the same gentleman tells me, to pre-Roman times; and years ago kings and queens owned and ran coursing dogs—so that is all right then. Mr. Mark Prescott, who organises the Waterloo cup, speaks similarly—although rather more eloquently—about the history of the sport. Much the same sort of argument, of course, can be made about public beheading, drawing and quartering, a tradition espoused both by the Romans and by our past monarchs. Hare coursing is also excused because it is a celebration of the skills of the hare—the pursuit species—as well as of the skills of the hounds. Celebrating the skills of an animal escaping its human-designed torture seems perverse in the extreme.
Hare coursing is excused, too, because it is good for the hare population—even though in many areas hare numbers are in decline and hares are captured and transported to coursing areas where their numbers have collapsed. The hare population is now about 20 per cent. of what it was 100 years ago. The United Kingdom biodiversity steering group includes the brown hare in its list of species in decline or under threat.
In common with other blood sports, hare coursing is further excused by the claim that it is a country activity which is opposed only by city people. That is the most blatant absurdity of all blood sports apologias. The audience for the slaughter at the Waterloo cup gives the lie to this claim. Hunts generally are supported by urban dwellers, as more and more people move in and out of the countryside for their leisure activities.
The attempt to build up a false mystique of country life to excuse hunting with dogs is a huge deception.
Another excuse is that banning hare coursing, as with hunting with dogs generally, is an infringement of individual liberties. That argument does not bear a moment's examination. No doubt Dr. Crippen thought his liberties were being infringed when he was arrested for his activities.
The only argument for blood sports that carries any weight—not much, at that—concerns the role that they play in the local economy. The same argument is used in favour of the exporting of land mines. Few jobs are involved and they are usually temporary ones. There are


many alternatives, certainly on managed estates. Bearing in mind the inevitability of legislation on this issue in the not-too-distant future, there is time for those involved to adjust their activities and to bring them more closely in keeping with what is acceptable to most British people.
Whatever the arguments for and against blood sports, I have one major underlying concern. One does not have to be a fervent animal lover to be deeply worried by the psychology of those who obtain pleasure from the killing of an animal and who increase that pleasure by setting one animal to kill another. Even more deeply disturbing is the psychology of those who gain their pleasure from simply watching this happen without even the excuse of participating themselves in the so-called thrill of the chase.
Hare coursing was the origin of greyhound and whippet racing, in which there is no intention to set out to kill an animal. These sports are enjoyed by millions of people with no lust for blood. They are where spectators of hare coursing can legitimately enjoy watching the progress of dogs.
There is no possible excuse for the continuation of the legality of hare coursing. I trust that during the lifetime of this Government the huge public revulsion at this activity will be reflected by Parliament banning it.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Peter Atkinson to oppose the motion.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is proper that I declare an interest at this stage, in that I am a consultant for the British Field Sports Society, an organisation which represents not only coursing but hunting, shooting, fishing and falconry.
This Bill has become something of a hardy annual with the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall); he has brought it up about four times in recent years, and I believe that it is time to explode some of the myths that he has perpetuated about the ancient sport of coursing. The hon. Gentleman's correspondent from Manningtree is correct in saying that hare coursing is, with falconry, one of the oldest field sports in existence.
Make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker: this is a question not simply of animal rights, but of individual rights. The hon. Member for West Lancashire said that it did not bear a moment's examination to suggest that he was proposing to take away the right of decision from individuals, but to me, that is the central issue in what he proposes. The matter should not be decided by law; people should be allowed to take part in that activity if they consider that it is right.
Defending individual freedom is what the House is about. We are in the Chamber because we have a duty to allow people to exercise their conscience on the matter and not to be dictated to.
People who follow coursing are annoyed by the ignorance of the sport on the part of the people who attack it. I give credit to the hon. Member for West Lancashire because I understand that he turned up at the Waterloo cup about two or three years ago. He spent about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes there, during which time not a single hare was killed, but I commend him for having done so.
Opinion polls suggest that the majority of the people who are opposed to coursing—I accept that there are many—understand little of the sport. Some years ago, an exercise was put in hand assembling a focus group—now a common thing with the Labour party—to ask people what they thought about coursing. The majority of people, when asked, said that coursing was letting a captive hare out of a box in an enclosed field and chasing it around the enclosed field with two greyhounds; the greyhound that killed it was the winner. Every one of those points is untrue. If that was the sport of coursing, I certainly should not be here defending it. Coursing is not about that.
Hon. Members are equally guilty of such ignorance. A Labour Member who introduced a similar Bill to the one before us appeared on a "Newsnight" programme. Mr. Paxman showed him two photographs, one of a rabbit and one of a hare. He was asked which was the hare and which was the rabbit, and he admitted that he could not tell. The previous time that a similar Bill was sent to a Standing Committee of the House, a Labour Member suggested that a course lasted for 40 minutes, whereas the average length of a course is 35 seconds.
I would spare the blushes of those Members, but it is wrong that Labour Members, especially, condemn the activities of perfectly reasonable individuals without knowing anything about those activities. Indeed, it is an abuse of Parliament to do so.
Hare coursing is about the pursuit of wild hares that are not restrained or interfered with. The object of coursing is to test the stamina, skill and ability of two greyhounds, not to kill hares, which is why very few hares are killed. In the last season—records are kept by the National Coursing Club—245 hares were killed during 89 days of coursing. On the other hand, it is possible to run a successful coursing meeting—such as the one that the hon. Member for West Lancashire will have seen at Altcar—only if there is a large population of wild, healthy hares in that area, so strict conservation methods must be introduced to ensure that the local hare population prospers. That is why, on coursing estates throughout the country and on the farms where the clubs run, the hare population is far higher than average.
The hon. Member for West Lancashire is right to say that the hare population has declined. It declined until about 20 years ago, although it is stable now. However, that was the result of changing farming practices and the fact that farmers now make silage, not the traditional hay. The decline is not, however, in the areas where coursing clubs look after the hares.
If he went to Altcar, the hon. Member for West Lancashire would see the conservation effort that is made by gamekeepers to protect the hares from predators such as foxes, and from human predators such as poachers. We share the hon. Gentleman's disapproval of illegal coursing, which is merely poaching. Even if the Bill became law, there would be no guarantee that those individuals would take any more notice of it than they take of the law of the land now. The only way to deal with those people is to arrest and prosecute them, and confiscate their vehicles.
If the Bill succeeds, the hare population on coursing estates will decline, as it has in other parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman may save 245 hares, but, ultimately, we would see the decline of many thousands of hares on


that field. The Bill is a bad bargain for hares and the hon. Gentleman should understand some of the paradoxes involved in the conservation of wild species.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the crowd. Curiously, last year he was rather rude about the crowd on what is known as the "public bank" at Altcar. Last year, I asked somebody from the British Field Sports Society to carry out a survey to find out who was sitting on the bank, and the news for the hon. Gentleman is that most of them were his constituents. Naturally, they are from the area and, traditionally, over many years, they have come to watch the Waterloo cup, so many of the people whom the hon. Gentleman described as beer-loaded lager louts are his constituents. Some have come from further afield: some are miners or factory workers; others are unemployed. There is no reason why they should not enjoy a traditional sport, as they always have.
Three proper substantial investigations have been carried out into coursing since the war, and all three have found in its favour. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the last, which was carried out by a House of Lords Special Select Committee set up in 1976 at the behest of a Labour Government.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It was not.

Mr. Atkinson: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, that Special Select Committee concluded—

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Atkinson: No, I will not give way because I have only a short time to speak—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has been here long enough to know that we are operating

under the 10-minute rule. If the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) does not wish to give way, he does not have to give way.

Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House by saying that a Labour Government established that Committee? They did not do so. It was established by a Tory majority in the House of Lords after my Bill, supported by the Government, had successfully gone through this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate, which, if necessary, can be corrected in some other way.

Mr. Atkinson: I said that the Committee was set up under a Labour Government—it was 1976, which I recall was the time of a Labour Government. It is important not to argue about that but to understand the conclusions of the House of Lords Special Select Committee that
the Committee have concluded that the Bill is not a suitable instrument for reducing the suffering of hares… The ethical question should in their opinion be for the individual conscience and not for legislation.
That is the position that this House should hold for today.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Jackie Ballard, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Eddie O'Hara, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Alan Meale and Angela Smith.

HARE COURSING

Mr. Colin Pickthall accordingly presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 70].

Wireless Telegraphy Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill, but it is of central importance for growth, competitiveness, innovation and jobs, and for maintaining the United Kingdom's position at the leading edge of the information revolution. It deals with the management of the radio spectrum. While that may sound a narrow, perhaps rather technical, matter, the provisions are crucial for ensuring the continued success of some of the most dynamic sectors of our economy, including radio, telephony, broadcasting and information technology.
Those technologies are not only growing rapidly, but converging at an increasing rate. What they all have in common is that they use the radio spectrum as a medium for the transmission of information. The Bill deals with the provision of that rare resource, the radio spectrum, on which the communications and information revolution so crucially depends.
The measure will allow the Government to charge for the right to use certain waves by mobile phone, pager, cab or other radio-based services, particularly in congested areas such as cities and the main communication corridors. Frequencies offered would be leased. The aim is to use commercial pricing as a means to effective spectrum price management.

Mr. John Redwood: Given that the Minister could make more spectrum available without tax increases, can he tell the House how there can be more jobs if he takes £1,500 million of much needed money out of the industry? Will he come clean and agree that that means fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and damage to the industry?

Mr. Battle: I am amazed at such an early intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. I remind him that his party proposed the measure to give a boost to this sector of the economy, as I shall spell out in detail. No, we do not see it as a tax measure. We see it as a means of opening space on the spectrum. That has been widely welcomed by the industry, as was clear from the consultation. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Bill started life in another place, where it was well received and constructively debated. I should like to think that that approach will be taken this afternoon.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. David Chidgey: Although we well understand that the intention of the Bill is better management of the radio spectrum, and that auctioning access to the spectrum is part of that process, there is a fear in the House that the Bill may become a tax-raising measure. It sets out the objectives to which the Minister must have regard, but it is not exclusive. It would be helpful if he could give the House some guarantee that it is entirely a matter of management, not a measure for raising taxes through whatever process may follow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Minister resumes, may I say that, when hon.

Members are seeking to interrupt the Minister at the Dispatch Box, it would be helpful if they would identify the fact that they are trying to interrupt, rather than standing like statues. It would equally be helpful if the Minister would indicate to which of several hon. Members he is giving way.

Mr. Battle: With so many interventions after one sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is hard to keep pace.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) can have the assurance he seeks. The purpose of the Bill is to break open the spectrum, to manage it better and to ensure that it can be used at all in the future. That is why many companies have welcomed the Bill. It is worth pointing out that the majority of users will face no increases, and will even pay less under the Bill. That is often not made sufficiently clear.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: With reference to clause 1 and my hon. Friend's last remarks, will he confirm that clause 1 does not refer to the use of radio equipment on United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels?

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that detailed point. Fishing vessels will come within the scope of the Bill, but it will not have an impact on the planned charges. The frequencies for maritime use and the standards for equipment and services used were determined internationally, so they will not be directly affected as my hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the Minister aware that the previous Government stated that they had no plans to introduce spectrum pricing to the 3.5 and 10 GHz bands used for fixed radio access by Ionica and other companies? As much of the equipment for fixed radio access is made in Nortel in my constituency, I am concerned about the policy of the previous Government, which was enlightened and well accepted by the work force of 800 at Nortel. Will the Minister confirm that the new Government will accept the principles established by the previous Administration in this field?

Mr. Battle: After lots of consultation, we have come to that view. In fact, Ionica welcomed the legislation when it was introduced. As I have said, we have accepted amendments that were made in the other place. Several amendments to the Bill reflect the comments and concerns expressed by the noble Lords, not least on behalf of some of the companies, particularly Orange. The Bill also takes account of the views expressed by a wide range of radio users in the course of extensive consultation by the Radiocommunications Agency.
I shall explain later the changes that we have made to the Bill, which have reinforced, and in no way undermined, the thrust of the legislation. I attach great importance to consultation and dialogue with those affected by the Bill regarding all the measures that my Department may bring forward. In order to emphasise our commitment to consultation, the Bill now provides specifically for statutory consultation on draft regulations.
It is tempting to say that the legislation has emerged from a series of consultations, including "The Future Management of the Radio Spectrum", published in March


1994; the White Paper entitled "Spectrum Management: into the 21st Century", published in June 1996—both endeavours of the previous Government—and "Implementing Spectrum Pricing", which was released within weeks of Labour's coming to office in May 1997. We intend to maintain wide-ranging, informed consultation with those affected by this measure, and later I shall announce new arrangements to take the process further forward and give users an even stronger voice in this vital area.
Radio has proved to be one of the key technologies of the 20th century. It is perhaps an appropriate time to introduce a Bill that will dramatically modernise the management of the radio spectrum, as this year marks the centenary of the establishment of the first stations in this country for wireless telegraphy. The first legislation regulating radio, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904, was put in place more than 90 years ago. The legal framework was updated through the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, but it remains essentially unchanged.
The world has changed rather dramatically since then, and radio has played a key part in many of those changes. Back in 1949, radio was used essentially for one purpose: sound broadcasting. There were then just three radio stations. Of course, radio was also used for some maritime communications—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) emphasized—and for radio astronomy, which was then in its infancy.
Developments in the use of the radio spectrum over the past 50 years have been astonishing. In broadcasting, we have seen the enormous growth of radio and television, which rely equally on the radio spectrum. As an illustration of this, the Radio Authority recently awarded its 200th licence for a local commercial station.
It is important to add that radio is no longer just about broadcasting. An enormous range of businesses now depend crucially on the radio spectrum—from the giants of telecommunications and computing to small businesses, such as taxi firms, which are crucially dependent on radio for their day-to-day operations. In future, we can expect the boundaries between radio, telephony and computing to become increasingly blurred, allowing, for example, portable computers to communicate more quickly and to convey greater quantities of information. Multimedia convergence is the brave new world facing us as we approach the new century.

Mr. John Bercow: I am following the Minister's historical reflections with the closest possible interest, but I return us to the present for a moment. Can he tell the House how much the Bill will cost the public sector? Health and emergency services, for example, are extremely reliant upon radio systems—as I hope the Minister is well aware. What action do the Government propose to take to ensure that those vital services have the access to the airwaves that they undoubtedly need?

Mr. Battle: It is important to emphasise that the concessions for services that use the radio spectrum for emergencies will remain. That was made absolutely clear in the debate in the other place. The whole purpose of the Bill is spectrum management. The public sector will have

similar incentives for spectrum management efficiency. In other words, the Ministry of Defence will have to pay a comparable amount, but the pricing for emergency services will be considered in the light of the consultation. The aim is not to price people out but to price them in, to use the spectrum more effectively, to open up space. That is the whole point, intent and purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I apologise for stopping the Minister from getting into his full flow, but many people are interested in the Bill. For several years before the last general election, my local fishermen were very upset that pleasure craft users, who effectively use the same radio licence as fishermen, were getting it very much cheaper. The fishermen felt that it would be better if pricing was more even.
I know that the Bill contains powers to make variation. The Conservative Government said that they were about to decide which way it should go, and I have a letter written in April—just before the hon. Gentleman took over. Has his Department made a determination about fairer fees between fishermen and pleasure craft owners, who in effect are using the same licence?

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We do not see the correspondence of the previous Administration, as he well knows, but I shall be happy to take his point further. His point has been taken on board. The aim is to have fair use of the spectrum as well as ensuring that more of it is used, because—as I think he hints—demand for services will increase. Radio is likely to remain the indispensable means of providing multimedia convergence and mobility. In other words, the radio spectrum, as the raw material of the information revolution, will be vital.
Nor is the question one of marginal, purely technological concern. I want to emphasise—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) raised this point with me—the importance of radio to the economy. In 1995–96, radio contributed £13 billion to gross domestic product, and more than 400,000 jobs were created. The contribution to GDP is growing at a rate of £1 billion a year, and jobs are being created in these industries at the rate of 1,000 a week. Radio also provides some £12 billion to £15 billion a year of efficiency gains and other user benefits, as businesses now rely on radio to facilitate their communications in a whole host of new ways, so it benefits the economy.
The whole purpose of the Bill—to open up the use of the spectrum—is to create space for that sector of the economy to grow. It is certain that pressures on the radio spectrum will increase as society demands ever greater mobility and as new services continue to become available, because demand in Britain for the radio spectrum is starting to outstrip its availability. That is the key point, and it is particularly true in the major conurbations and in the corridors between them where radio use is most concentrated.
In other words, we need to act now for the benefit of all radio users, private and business. I am tempted to say that, if we do not open up the space, we will not be able to use it at all, because it will be too congested, and we will all fail. That is the whole point of introducing the Bill at this time.
If we fail to do that, the result will be increased spectrum prices and congestion. Businesses will be denied access to the radio services on which they now depend.
Introducing new technologies will be delayed, and the cost to the economy will be incalculable, because businesses will grind to a halt. They will not be able to improve, because they will not have the space to take advantage of new technologies to move further forward. The cost to the economy could be billions of pounds a year, and thousands of jobs could go, or at least be jeopardised, if we do not open up the space now.
The legislative framework for managing the radio spectrum was designed for an era when spectrum availability was not a problem. Up to now, it has served us relatively well, but it does not provide us with the tools we need to manage the spectrum effectively to provide the basis for continued growth and innovation. That is the purpose of the Bill—to update the spectrum management framework, set up in the early 20th century, to take us forward to meet the challenges of the 21st.
Under current legislation, the radio spectrum is managed by regulation, and licence fees have to be based on the administrative costs of the Radiocommunications Agency in carrying out its licensing and spectrum management functions in respect of each licence class. That has two perverse effects.
First, because licence fees are not priced according to the value of the spectrum used, demand becomes distorted. Users do not have an incentive to use the spectrum more efficiently, for example by investing in more spectrum-efficient equipment, and may also be tempted to hang on to spectrum that they are not currently in a position to use to the full—or in some instances to use at all—because the cost to them of using it is minimal. In other words, the present system generates an attitude of hoarding spectrum space.
Secondly, as a consequence of the cost-recovery principle, the fee structure discriminates heavily against small businesses, because their fees are much higher in terms of the amount of radio spectrum they use. For example, small businesses such as taxi firms or couriers pay on average 30 times more than one of the large telecommunications operators for the same amount of spectrum. I think that we would all agree that that is obviously unfair.
The Bill will bring about a radical change in the way in which the spectrum is managed. It will enable—indeed, require—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when setting fees, to take account of a range of criteria connected with the efficient management of the spectrum, rather than, as at present, simply applying administrative costs.

Mr. David Prior: If existing users of spectrum do not have to pay a fee, and if new users will have to bid in an auction and pay a fee to use the spectrum, how will that encourage new entrants?

Mr. Battle: Existing services will not be subject to an auction. There are no plans to subject current users to auctions for existing arrangements. Auctions will apply to the new space that is opened up. We envisage auctions being used on rare occasions, when there are many intensive bids for the same amount of space. I shall say a little more about the detail of auctions, but I do not see everyone rushing down the auction route. That is not the intention or purpose behind the Bill.
Before outlining the main provisions of the Bill, I should explain that it contains enabling powers. The detailed implementation of these powers in relation to

licence fees and auctions will be through regulations. That will provide the flexibility that is essential to respond to the pace of change in this sector. If we set the rules now and hope that they will last for another 100 years, we shall be caught out by the changing pace of technology and its converging world.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, because he has been generous in giving way.
Has the Minister made any estimate of the likely proceeds that will be realised as a consequence of the Bill? Will he share with the House any estimate that has been made? Is it a matter that he has discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Battle: Much depends, of course, on decisions that are taken on auctions, and I shall spell out later the decisions that are involved. About £500 million to £1.5 billion could be raised over many years. That will not happen overnight, because the process will be phased. Surely that is the proper way in which to proceed. Some revenue will be generated, and we should not apologise for that. I shall return later to the detail.
The intention behind the Bill is to open up space. What will happen if we do nothing? The answer is that cities and main corridors will be left clogged, so that no one can use them. What is the option apart from shutting down the economy? That is not a sensible way in which to proceed.
There will be licensing, and in terms of spectrum space, we have a right to look after taxpayers' interests and to say that they should have a revenue take. The main purpose is to manage the spectrum well. If we do not prise it open, nothing will happen. Indeed, things will get worse.
Clause 1 contains a general power to allow the Secretary of State to set fees by regulations. The clause will replace regulation-making powers as set out in section 2 of the 1949 Act.
Clause 2 is the core of the Bill. In particular, clause 2(1) breaks the link between the fees under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and the Radiocommunications Agency's administrative costs. That will allow the Secretary of State, if she thinks fit, to set fees higher than those set on the basis of cost recovery.
Concerns have been expressed in the other place and by industry that higher fees could, in effect, become a form of taxation, but those fears are unfounded. I am sad that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has left the Chamber, because I would like to spell out why, as my right hon. Friend recognises, it would be counter-productive to impose unnecessarily high fees on a sector that contributes enormously to the growth of the national economy.
I stress that the clause contains important provisions that will constrain the level of fees charged by my right hon. Friend or any of her successors. There is a built-in break clause. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if he reads clause 2(1), he will find an answer to his question.
The clause requires that, in setting fees, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the matters specified in subsection (2). In setting fees, the Secretary of State must take account of the extent to which the required fee level will promote the efficient use of the electro-magnetic


spectrum, the economic benefits arising from the use of radio, and the development of innovative services and competition in the provision of telecommunication services.
If charges are increased from current levels, it will be because such charges are necessary to balance supply and demand in support of the objectives set out in clause 2. I cannot emphasise enough that the purpose of the Bill is to optimise the use of radio spectrum.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I hope that the Minister was not inadvertently misleading the House when he read out subsection (1), because he missed out the two words "in particular". Given the amendment that was carried in the other place, which I hope he will accept, he will have to concede that the Secretary of State can have regard to matters other than those referred to in subsection (2), so he can increase the charges for other purposes that are not listed in the Bill. Is that not the position?

Mr. Battle: Of course that is the position, but, as I said, it would not be sane to price out the very sector that contributes massively to the growth of the national economy. That is not the purpose and intent of the Bill. It is unbelievable for Conservative Members to say that they are against it because it may lead to revenue for the Government.
I shall put the issue into a different context. Article 11 of the European telecommunications licensing directive, which was adopted by the previous Government on 10 April and which all member states must implement, deals with fees and charges for individual licences. The directive recognises that, where scarce resources, such as the radio spectrum, are to be used, member states should be allowed to impose charges that go beyond cost recovery, to reflect the need to ensure the optimal use of those resources. The proposals in the Bill are fully in line with that directive, which underpins the safeguards in clause 2.
If the Bill becomes law, it is proposed to introduce new fees by regulation next year. We want the implementation of spectrum pricing to take full account of the views of radio users. We attach great importance to consultation. It has happened before, and we have continued that process in good faith so that industry can be fully prepared for the likely changes that will be required and so that the new fee proposals, which will ultimately be contained in regulations, take full account of the views of users. I do not know what more we can practically do.
That is why, on 29 May, the Radiocommunications Agency issued a consultation document called "Implementing Spectrum Pricing", which set out in some detail how it is proposed to implement the new approach. The proposals in that document represent the culmination of a great deal of on-going discussion with the industry, and in particular the results of the consultations that took place under the previous Government. Consultation is a sensible way to take this debate and these policies

forward, so that the proposal is practical and breaks open the spectrum without pricing people out. The idea is to price people in.

Mr. Fallon: Is it or is it not the case that, under clause 2, revenue could be raised through extra charges for matters that are not specified in the clause?

Mr. Battle: Yes, but we felt that the range set out for the more efficient use of the spectrum, and enabling innovation to be considered, was not wide enough to ensure that we allowed for the possibilities of the future.
The hon. Gentleman may not realise that, given the current merger of telecommunications services, we need some space so that we can try to anticipate the shape of the future in an incredibly dynamic area. I accept that I shall never convince the hon. Gentleman; he believes that this is purely a tax measure, he will stick to that view, and will presumably oppose the measure. I challenge him, however, to say in opposing it what he would do instead. If we do not break open that space, there will be a massively damaging effect on business.

Mr. Prior: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Battle: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall do so again, for the last time.

Mr. Prior: I want to return to the question that I asked earlier, about the effect of the legislation on new entrants to the industry. It is all very well for those with existing spectrum, who are paying no fees—I can see why they would support the Bill—but what about new entrants?

Mr. Battle: The whole point of the Bill is to support existing entrants. If we can prise open the spectrum, new entrants will be able to go into it without any problem. I do not see how, when we are changing the fee structure across the board, there is any differentiation to be made. There would be if there were auctions, but I have the impression from what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said that they believe that the purpose of the legislation is not spectrum management, but the introduction of a tax measure.

Mr. Fallon: It is both.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman presses me, but even the amendment to which he referred stated that any other reasons taken into account by my right hon. Friend would have to have reference and be related to spectrum management objectives. Clause 2 is not a clause under which revenue can be raised for anything; the point is to link it directly to the spectrum management objectives.
As for the specific proposals, as I have explained, the agency will take fully into account the comments that were made on the consultation document, and the revised proposals will take account of comments made then, and here, during this debate. Under the revised proposals, higher charges will be focused on the services and geographical areas where the spectrum is under most pressure, and where there is a spectrum management need to use the spectrum pricing tool. We estimate that most licensees will pay no more than they do now, and may


pay up to 50 per cent. less. This is good news, not the bad news that Conservative Members seem to want to make it out to be.
Safety of life" charities such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and St. John Ambulance benefit from concessionary licence fees now. I emphasise—because some concern has been expressed—that those arrangements will continue under the new powers.
The other main plank of the Bill is the provision in clause 3 for licences to be auctioned. Hon. Members have raised the question of auctioning. We see auctions as a new tool. We do not intend them to be introduced across the board—that would be impractical—but there may be circumstances in which, in relation to a particular service, there will be more competing service providers than can be licensed. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State will have to choose who can be given a licence.
We believe that, in such circumstances, auctions have the real attractions of speed and transparency. They represent a more objective means of licensing than the alternative of what could be described as a beauty contest, which would require the Secretary of State or another person to choose between competing providers on the basis of criteria that would inevitably involve an element of subjective judgment. Although I would not rule that out in all conceivable circumstances, it is proving increasingly complex and contentious as the number of players in the industry continues to grow. An auction, however, would provide an objective basis for selection and ensure the selection of people who attach the highest value to the spectrum and are likely to use it to generate the greatest economic benefit.
In addition, auctions offer the possibility of substantial benefits to the Exchequer. As I have spelt out, income maximisation is not the reason for that approach, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the taxpayer should benefit from the provision to industry of this valuable resource.
I have referred to the consultation last year by the agency. Although that revealed fairly widespread support for spectrum pricing, concerns were expressed about the widespread use of auctions. Many of the same concerns have been expressed subsequently by industry and in another place. All I can do is repeat our assurances about how we propose to use the powers in clause 3.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: In the context of an auction, what does the Minister foresee might be added under clause 3(3)(e), which says that the Secretary of State may, in relation to the issue of such a licence,
specify matters to be taken into account by the Secretary of State"?
How will those additional matters that are specified be taken into account in the context of an auction?

Mr. Battle: Again, we do not intend to require the many small and medium businesses that use radio through, for example, self-provided systems to start competing in auctions, because that approach would be neither practical nor desirable, given the number of businesses involved. Nor do we propose to require existing licensees to enter an auction for the right to

continue to provide their services within their existing spectrum allocation. I know that the four main mobile telecommunications operators have expressed concern—

Mr. Fallon: Concern?

Mr. Battle: Yes, but we do not intend to require a mass auction. That is part of the mythology. Having said that, even the major telecommunications operators have welcomed the Bill and accept it.
We are happy to discuss the detail, including the comments by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), in Committee—if he still feels that there is a problem in relation to third generation—to find out how we can come to a compromise and ensure that the Bill passes into law, so that the spectrum is managed properly and beneficially. As I have emphasised, if we do not do it now, we will hold back economic and business development.
We do not intend to require broadcasters who have already entered into an auction for the right to provide their service under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, to enter another auction to have continued access to the radio spectrum they need. I accept that that would be double jeopardy.

Mr. Lansley: I fear that I have to return to the point that I put to the Minister, because I do not think that he has answered it. Clause 3 seems to foresee that, even in relation to an auction, there will be circumstances in which matters other than the bid made under the prescribed procedure will be the basis on which a licence is issued. That is not about simply specifying requirements in advance. Something other than the greatest bid may be taken—for example, because of the investment that will be put into efficient spectrum use—but what is the Minister's intention in presenting the Bill in this form?

Mr. Battle: Consultation continues on auctioning, but we envisage that the auctions will most likely be used for new national or regional services, where there are more competing players than can be realistically accommodated in the spectrum and where selection is therefore necessary.
It is likely—although the Government have not taken a decision on this—that the first auction will be for licences for the so-called third generation mobile telephony, also known as the universal mobile telecommunications service. That service uses terrestrial and satellite telephone links. As I am sure the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) knows, it combines mobile telephony systems with flexible features such as the possibility of high-speed access to many information and entertainment services.
In July, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry issued a consultation document called "Multimedia Communications on the Move". That explained that, although the first UMTS services are unlikely to come on stream until about 2000, we accept that there is a case for much earlier licensing certainty—the industry has asked for stability and certainty so that it knows where it is—in view of the scale of investment needed by service providers.


The closing date for comments on "Multimedia Communications on the Move" was the middle of this month. As I have said all along in the debate, we will take account of the comments in deciding the next steps, but there is a clear case for assigning UMTS licences by auction. I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire could envisage such a situation. The aim is not to move to mass auctions for everyone else. A mythology has built up around the Bill.
Clause 4 is designed to give enhanced security of tenure to licence holders. It enables the Secretary of State to include in a licence terms restricting her power to revoke or to vary the licence. At present, a Wireless Telegraphy Act licence may, in most cases, be revoked or varied at any time by the Secretary of State. That would normally be done only where the licensee had conspicuously failed to respect the terms of the licence.
In practice, it is rare for the Secretary of State to revoke or to vary a licence other than at the request of the licensee. Where there is a need to move a licensee to a different frequency, for spectrum management reasons, the approach of the Radiocommunications Agency is to do that over time, in consultation with the licensee.
We accept, however, that different considerations are likely to apply where licences for a considerable number of years may be auctioned and licensees may need to undertake large investment. We accept that, in those circumstances, licensees will want a firmer, legally binding guarantee that they will have security of tenure and that their licence will not be unexpectedly revoked by the Secretary of State.
That is why the power in clause 4 will enable the Secretary of State to include conditions that will give licensees the certainty that their licences will not be revoked, except in the exceptional circumstances set out in subsection (5)—for purposes of national security, or to enable the United Kingdom to comply with European Community obligations, international agreements or the like.
Clause 5 will allow the Secretary of State to undertake expenditure in support of the objective of efficient spectrum management. Although the Bill's main purpose, as I have repeatedly emphasised, is to use spectrum pricing as a tool for more efficient spectrum management, it will also produce increased revenues for the Government. There is certainly no question of hypothecation of those revenues.
However, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make grants to persons where, in her opinion, that is likely to support the objective of better spectrum management. The whole point is that the power of the Secretary of State is to back up better spectrum management.
There are ways in which the power could be used. For example, it could take the form of support of research into more spectrally efficient technologies. It might also be used to support courses provided by universities for the training of radio engineers in spectrally efficient techniques. Any expenditure that is proposed under that power would have to satisfy normal public expenditure and value-for-money criteria.
Clause 6 deals with the power to make regulations. As I have explained, both licence fees and proposals in relation to auctions will be set out in regulations. Under

subsection 6(2), which we introduced in another place to respond to concerns about the need for consultation on regulations made under the powers in the Bill, the Secretary of State will be obliged to publish a notice, in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes, setting out the gist of any regulations made under the power, specifying an address from which copies of the proposed regulations may be obtained, and setting a time limit of at least 28 days during which representations may be made. There is also an obligation on the Secretary of State to consider any representations that are made to her within that time.
We have introduced this provision in response to concerns. However, I emphasise that we see it as supplementary to, and in no way a substitute for, the non-statutory consultation to which we are fully committed. [Interruption.] We are going wider by saying, "Let us open the doors and work together to get this right."
The DTI and the Radiocommunications Agency have consulted extensively about proposals in this area. I have referred to recently published consultation documents on administrative pricing and on the licensing of the universal mobile telecommunications service. That consultation on specific proposals will continue. The new power simply provides a statutory guarantee that there must be a final phase of consultation before regulations are made. That is because consultation and partnership are at the heart of our approach to the development of industrial policy.
We recognise that there are enormous resources of knowledge, expertise and experience in the radio industry. It is to everyone's advantage that we draw upon them in getting the Bill right. Therefore, I am pleased to announce the establishment of a high-level spectrum management advisory group which will be drawn from radio users. The group's purpose will be to provide independent impartial advice directly to Ministers on a broad range of issues that will affect this fast-developing industry.
In particular, the group's role will be to advise on the Radiocommunications Agency's spectrum strategy, on major national allocation decisions, on the application of spectrum pricing, and on the policy objectives to be pursued in the relevant international arena. That will benefit industry and users of the radio spectrum, by bringing an informed industry perspective into the heart of our policy-making process. I shall lay the group's full terms of reference in the Library of both Houses. Appointments to the committee will be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry.
The decision to set up the spectrum management advisory group, together with the Bill's provisions and the agency's commitment to consultation, should demonstrate beyond any doubt our total commitment to ensuring that the interests of users are placed at the heart of policy making in this area. In the light of their interventions, I ask Opposition Members simply to ask themselves what will happen if they oppose the Bill and we do nothing. That will effectively clog up the whole system and damage the development of industry and business into the next century.
This short but important Bill provides a balanced package of spectrum management tools to ensure the optimum development of the radio spectrum to the benefit


of business, consumers and our economy as a whole. It will not only ensure the continued prosperity of our most successful world-leading telecommunication industries but provide the necessary headroom for the development of those industries into the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Redwood: "Good news," says the Minister, "A tax increase." "Good news," says the Minister, "The 18th tax increase from new Labour, and the money will not go back to the successful industry that pays it—it will go somewhere else." He says, "This will be the first £1,500 million tax raid in history that has created jobs rather than destroyed them in the industry that will have to pay the bill."
I pay tribute to the Minister for accepting my interventions and those of my hon. Friends and for his patience. However, it would have been better if he had been able to answer our powerful interventions. We asked how the details of the legislation would work, but he was unable to tell us. We asked for reassurances on sensitive services and important businesses in various constituencies, but again there were no satisfactory reassurances.

Mr. Battle: I am absolutely clear that we gave assurances on essential services, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman missed them. He supported the measure when he was in government. Does he now intend to oppose it and jeopardise business as a result?

Mr. Redwood: We shall oppose it, but we shall not jeopardise business because I shall shortly reveal to the Minister how to handle the matter much better. In his two-part intervention he mentioned emergency services, but they are not in the Bill. Will he put them in the Bill?

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): rose—

Mr. Redwood: I will finish the point and perhaps the Minister who raised the issue will clarify it. Will he reassure the House that there will be no adverse cost consequences for the health service, for instance, as a result of the increased charges under the legislation? The Minister does not respond, so the point is made and my right hon. and hon. Friends will draw their own conclusions.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Is it correct that the right hon. Gentleman supported these proposals or similar ones when he was in government? If so, does he propose to explain what led to his change of heart?

Mr. Redwood: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has walked straight into an elephant trap. As he knows, the legislation has a chequered history. Officials in the Department tried to persuade me of its merits some years ago when I was Minister with responsibility for telecommunications. I am sure that Labour Members will

be disappointed to hear that I turned it down. I refused to recommend it and continued my opposition to it from then until the present day.

Mrs. Roche: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I give way to the impatient Minister.

Mrs. Roche: I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not impatient but courteous and always willing to put the right hon. Gentleman out of his misery. Plainly, the attitude of Conservative Members is not just a turnaround from when they were in government. Let us look at what they said in opposition. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, their shadow Minister, Lord Inglewood, said:
I should begin by telling the House that we support the principle of the Bill
and:
I conclude by reiterating our support for the approach that the Government are adopting. Although we shall obviously be looking at the Bill with a critical eye, we shall be doing so with a view to being constructive, not destructive."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1997; Vol. 580, c.727-30.]
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to take a lesson from his noble Friend.

Mr. Redwood: That was also a poor point. Of course we support the principle of better spectrum management, but we are unhappy about many of the powers and details in the legislation. My hon. Friends and I will demonstrate that in the debate and in Committee.
Officials tried the legislation on my successors after I ceased to have responsibility for telecommunications, but most of them also turned it down. Towards the end of the Conservative period in office the then Secretary of State came round to the Bill's principle, but even he did not think it sufficiently important to put it in his legislative programme nor did he ever put a figure as big as £1,500 million on the amount to be taken from the pockets of a successful industry. How wise he was.
We strongly object to the wide-ranging powers in this draft of the legislation to tax-raid people without proper recourse to Parliament for primary legislation. At least the Chancellor's 17 tax rises were in the Finance Bill and were debated, up to a point, in the House and in Committee. The idea behind this Bill is to give to Ministers, through statutory instruments and secondary legislation, enormously wide-ranging powers to tax-raid the honeypot of a successful industry that was created by the policies that Conservatives put into practice in the 1980s and 1990s by breaking the monopolies and opening up to innovation a most important industrial sector.

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for a second time. I am perplexed by what he says. He clearly states that he supports the principle of spectrum management and efficiency but not the Bill. Can he explain why in a debate in July on the Information Society initiative the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said:
Opposition and Government can sometimes find common ground and I warmly support what the Minister is doing with regard to that Bill."—[Official Report, 11 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 1203.]


That comment was about the Bill that is currently before the House. Is that not yet another example of the Opposition being split down the middle?

Mr. Redwood: No, I am sure that the quotation has been taken out of context and that my hon. Friend fully supports what I am saying today as this is the agreed shadow Cabinet and shadow team policy of Her Majesty's loyal but effective Opposition. This is a policy based on principle, which I have always held. I note that Ministers do not suggest that I was in favour of the legislation when I was in the Department. If they care to check with their officials privately later, when the rules with regard to what went on in the previous Administration can be bent a little, I am sure that they will be put right on that point.
What is curious—I put it no more strongly than that—is that this Opposition-turned-Government, still behaving on most occasions as an Opposition with a majority rather than as a Government, should have forgotten how strongly they objected to the statement of principle by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State when he announced it, how they opposed it vigorously in those early days and how they have now turned right round and have come up with this as their first piece of legislation, presumably their most important piece of legislation, the thing which the DTI, under this new team, brings to the House of Commons as its priority for this new Session of Parliament and this new Government.
How odd that thast should be the Government's conclusion out of all the things they could have done, should have done, might have done, out of all the things that they could have done to satisfy their colleagues on the Benches behind them and all those things that they promised to do in their manifesto.
The DTI under this Government has come to stand for the Department of total incompetence. Here is the Department dedicated to greater openness in government in which one is not even allowed to know which Minister is handling the issue. This is the Department so keen on greater transparency that one is not even allowed to know which Ministers have gone on holiday and which have stayed in the office to man the fort. This is the Department of greater honesty where one is not even allowed to know which Ministers are shareholders in which companies. Will the Government today tell us if any Ministers are missing because they have shareholdings in relevant companies and therefore cannot support or comment on the Bill? Will the Minister answer that point?

Mr. Battle: All DTI Ministers behave entirely properly, in accordance with the ministerial code, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between their private interests and their ministerial responsibilities. It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped raising that smear and canard across the Floor.

Mr. Redwood: The matter can easily be cleared up. If the Minister and his colleagues will now publish a full list of the things that they cannot do because they have ruled themselves out for fear of conflict, I will end my campaign and I shall be grateful for the information. That is information that the public deserve to know. If the public wish to write to a Minister at the DTI, it is a

courtesy to write to the one who is handling the issue. I have had to find out by persistent questioning what the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is or is not allowed to do. Why do they not clear the matter up here and now by telling the House today which Ministers do what and which things they cannot do?
Meanwhile, the Department of tragic inconsequence is busily giving away its powers to Brussels, to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Prime Minister, to the Treasury, to anyone else who will take away its work and responsibilities. The Bill was shunted around the Department and the President, having approved it, has now washed her hands of it. She does that for practically everything going on in the Department. I am amazed that she bothered to pop into the House this afternoon, although I note that she did not hear most of her Minister's speech and has now disappeared again. She has no speaking part in launching the most important Bill that she has chosen for this Session of Parliament. [Interruption.] Well, where is the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Battle: My right hon. Friend is at a meeting of one of the Cabinet Committees, at which she is entitled to be present. Under the previous Government, about six Bills were put through by Under-Secretaries of State. There was no sign of any member of the Cabinet anywhere near them. For the right hon. Gentleman to make such a miserable point belittles a contribution in which I was becoming interested.

Mr. Redwood: I am glad that the Minister realises that I have some strong points on the Bill, but there are wider points that we must make because we need to know how the Bill is being handled. We can see that the President is not interested in it. I think that she read some of it for the first time on the Treasury Bench when she popped in. I should be at a meeting of the shadow Cabinet this evening, but I thought it more important to be in the House of Commons debating the priority measure chosen by the DTI ministerial team.
The President of the Board of Trade has shown contempt for the House in many ways—by refusing to answer questions, by refusing to come clean about what her Ministers can and cannot do, and now by refusing to be here during most of the proceedings on her chosen piece of legislation.

Mrs. Roche: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: I was about to say something nice about the hon. Lady, but I will give way instead.

Mrs. Roche: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I appreciate his courtesy in doing so. I am not usually one of the world's pleaders, but I plead with the right hon. Gentleman not to say anything nice about me because I would hate my credibility with my colleagues behind me to sink and be damaged.
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Did the then President of the Board of Trade show contempt for the House and neglect when on 12 February 1991 the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of State, introduced the British Technology Group Bill? Is this not a case of one rule for the Conservatives when they were


in government and another for us now that we are in government? I am sorry that the Opposition have to go to such lengths to make the points that they have made today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I plead with right hon. and hon. Members to recall that this is the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.

Mr. Redwood: That warning will be well heeded by the Opposition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hasten to reassure you that I have spent most of my time on remarks on the Bill and on the handling of the Bill. It is important, however, to establish which Minister or Ministers will be handling the Bill and why, and how they might be handling it.
From memory, I think that the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was in the House in support. I cannot be sure about that, but my right hon. Friend was a courteous Secretary of State who answered the Opposition's questions, oral and written, whereas I have had terrible trouble getting any answers out of the present DTI, making me wonder why Ministers are so reluctant to answer such straightforward questions. Why could I not be told during the summer who was on duty and who was on holiday? That is not a terribly difficult question to answer, but I was told that the information was a state secret and that the question could not be answered. Why can we not be told what Ministers can and cannot do?
I return to the Bill, as I have been enjoined to do. I should like to know what happened in the United States when spectrum auctions were introduced. Has the Minister studied that? Has he followed the way in which the bids got out of control and bankruptcies followed? Has he factored that into his calculations?
I see that the one semi-competent Minister in the Department has been drafted in, in part, to help on the Bill. The normal pattern of life at the DTI is that the President decides or dithers, she then passes the matter to the Minister of State, he then gets into a muddle and we have to call upon the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry. I am afraid that I am about to flatter the Minister because I am well aware that it could do her untold damage with her hon. Friends and that would help our cause further. It was no idle slip when the Minister of State called his hon. Friend right honourable. He obviously felt that she was calling the shots and that that dignity should soon pass to her. I predict that we may well find that in Committee the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry does a lot of the work. I look forward to discovering whether that comes true.
The Bill is what civil servants call a brave Bill. "Well, Minister," say the civil servants, "it's the right thing to do and it's very brave of you to take it on." This is a simple measure to tax people for being successful—to tax all those new businesses in telephony, paging and messaging which need access to the airwaves. It may be the first step on the road to that most perfect of all Labour taxes: a tax on breathing—a tax on air itself.
It will be part of the Government's style that they impose back-door taxes on everyone who moves and on quite a few who do not. We have seen it in the Budget and now they are back for more. They are starting with the microwave fixed links and the mobile radio concerns. We need to know why it should be them. Why are the Government discriminating in this way? Why is there an injustice in the Bill and in their intentions?
Considering the events of the past three weeks, I wondered whether the Bill was perhaps a part of a larger plan—to discipline the spin doctors who have spun so out of control. I have been told that spin doctors do most of their work on mobile telephones, and that they are some of the biggest users of the airwaves. What better way of bringing them to heel than by taxing their little game?

Mr. Battle: What do those comments have to do with the Bill?

Mr. Redwood: They are central to the Bill, because the Bill is a tax on spin doctoring, and it will impose a cash limit on the Department that employs them. Even some Labour Members understand the point of my comments. If that is the Government's objective in passing the Bill, however, I should tell them that it will not work. The first law of spin doctoring is that of its own indispensability. If there are cuts to be made in departmental budgets, they will be made not among the spinners but elsewhere.
I then wondered whether the President of the Board of Trade and her men have decided to pursue a vendetta against the new methods of control over Labour Members, because the Bill will impose a pager tax. Perhaps there is seething indignation over the way in which Labour Members are being silenced and fed the daily banality on their pagers. It is the President's revenge, striking at the very nerve centre—for there is no heart—of new Labour: the command and control module at the Mandelsonian core. The policy will not work.

Dr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: Surely there is not a reply on the pager already.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene once more. I should like merely to return the debate from his increasingly frivolous comments to the subject of the Bill. Did he disagree with the Conservative party's general election manifesto, in which Conservatives decided to call for competitive pricing in large parts of radio management—so that substantial revenue increases would result?

Mr. Redwood: As I said, my principal objection to the Bill is its wide-ranging tax-raising powers and the likelihood of a £1,500 million tax increase.

Mr. Clive Betts: Answer the question.

Mr. Redwood: I will not go into my views on the details of the most recent Conservative manifesto, which was put to the electorate and rejected. We are now working on a much better model to present next time to the electors. Meanwhile, our job is to try to hold this miserable Government to account and to discover why and by how much they wish to tax those in the telecommunications industry. I think that we shall find that new Labour lives by pagers alone, whatever the cost—which I am sure that Ministers will pass on.
It is a pity that the President of the Board of Trade thinks that this Bill is the most important legislation when we could be debating competition legislation or some


other measure in new Labour's job destruction programme. Her dithering for almost half a year over the P and O and Stena matter threatens jobs and livelihoods on cross-channel services. Why can she not be in the Chamber today to debate that matter? In the brewing industry, 1,500 jobs have been lost because of one of her few decisions. There has been no debate in the House about those job losses, although Labour Members in affected constituencies are quietly seething. It is time for those hon. Members to speak up for their constituents.
The President's Department is busily watching the collapse of the coal industry, and there has been no vigorous response to the unfair German competition which is threatening our pits. The President did nothing when Asfordby closed, and she stands poised to do nothing as other pits close. It is no wonder that the new President's old friends on the left feel that she has abandoned them.
What a pity it is that the President cannot spare any of her own time to look into the plight of the Cornish tin industry when it, too, is threatened with closure. Instead, she confines herself to taxing success.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My previous pleadings seem to have failed. May I please direct the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that we are debating the Wireless Telegraphy Bill. His comments do not fall within the wide title of that Bill.

Mr. Redwood: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right to remind me of that fact. I was attempting to demonstrate the fact that this Bill was an unfortunate choice for a Department that is so burdened with problems and wrong policies. As the President of the Board of Trade will not be in the Chamber for the reply, I will not have an opportunity to ask her in person about those matters, and that will be a great pity for the House. Hon. Members would like occasionally to see their President of the Board of Trade so that they can hold her to account.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry asked me what else, if not this Bill, could be done to provide the spectrum that our growing industry needs. He might look in the history books through which he has been trawling to discover what the previous Government did in recent years. When I was a Minister, we reviewed the spectrum and negotiated with the public bodies that were holding too much of it. They shed that spectrum, which we made available for other users.
Why does the Minister not start there? In his own remarks, he said that the current system has worked pretty well up to this point. We made it work by removing spectrum from public bodies that had been hoarding too much of it. Today, he himself has said that spectrum hoarding is occurring. Much of that hoarding must still be in the public sector, because that sector tends to be the dominant holder of spectrum which has been passed down over the years.
The House needs to know how the President will sort out the mess over powers in this legislation, how she will find sufficient spectrum for the exciting new services that will be available and how she will claim that she will be fair to the different parts of the industry in a Bill that is currently lopsided and unfair.
The Bill states that between £500 million and £1,500 million will be raised, and that there will be another £75 million on top of that. Why cannot Ministers decide now how much money they wish to raise with the Bill—how much they wish to plunder from the industry—and tell the House? The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry says that the amount will depend on the auction prices. Of course it will depend on the prices, but Ministers have it within their power to decide how long to run the auctions and how much spectrum to sell in them. Therefore, why does not the Minister tell the House the limits of his ambition for raising money from a very successful industry?
Why has the Minister not done any homework on how many jobs will be lost and how many businesses could be closed by taxation on this scale and by shifting systems to provide spectrum to a crucial industry? Why have not Ministers worked out how much the measure will cost the public sector? Why have they not included in the Bill safeguards for the emergency services that require special frequencies? When will they strengthen all the assurances given in another place, and given again in today's debate, and include them in the Bill for which they are responsible? The Bill is a sloppy measure, poorly drafted and not properly thought through. The Minister would be well advised to take it away and try to improve it.
Has the Minister consulted the health service about the extra costs that will be imposed on it? Will the Government increase the budgets of Departments that will be affected, such as the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence—or will there be more ward and bed closures to pay the bills? Perhaps the President's budget should again be raided, as it was the other day, to pay for mistakes elsewhere.
After weeks of surrender of territory by the DTI, there is a rumour that the President is to become overlord of regional grants—not to give out more to the telecommunications industry, which may be in need of a handout after her Department is finished with it, but to scale back the passion, particularly of the Secretary of State for Wales, for spending more. I believe that the President has to come to the defence of the northern region to protect the Prime Minister and his northern interests.
The President's new role, however, is not the end of her territorial ambitions. After five months of burying her head in the sands of the DTI, her ultimate reward has been to become one of the five people entrusted with preparing the United Kingdom for economic and monetary union and the abolition of the pound. It must have been her enthusiasm, in 1980, for complete withdrawal from the European Economic Community that led to her appointment. She said then that none of the arguments for staying in the EEC could be sustained. Perhaps her appointment was a result of her remarks, in 1990, that Britain should be "global rather than European". How can anyone say that new Labour is without a sense of humour when the President has been appointed to deal with EMU rather than to get on with the more crucial job in her Department of straightening out the Bill and answering a few questions in the House about her real responsibilities?
The UK requires a strong telecommunications industry and more spectrum to open up new services. As a Minister, one of the tasks that I was most pleased to perform was finding more spectrum to allow more new services, putting us ahead of the world in many spheres.


I did not require a tax to accomplish that objective; I simply found more spectrum in the public sector's horde.

Mr. Battle: I do not wish to take away anything from the right hon. Gentleman. When he was a Minister, he did find space in the public sector. I seem to recall, however, that the public sector accounts for about 40 per cent. of the total. Although some efficiencies were made in the public sector, we must deal with the private sector, which accounts for the other 60 per cent. That is the purpose of the Bill. We have introduced the Bill because we cannot squeeze more spectrum out of the public sector. If he thinks that he could have found more spectrum in the public sector, why on earth did he not do so?

Mr. Redwood: I set up a continuing review programme which would have progressively squeezed more out. I wonder whether the Minister has even tried to do that. I think that he has blundered into the Bill and has been given this excuse for it by his officials. I doubt whether he has had any meetings to try to free spectrum from any parts of the economy. He thinks that it can all be done by imposing tax increases.
The Bill sums up all that is wrong with the Department of Trade and Industry. It is bad for business and will cost us jobs and technical leadership. It is mean-minded and badly drafted. Ministers cannot even tell us to the nearest billion pounds what the tax will raise. The Opposition cannot support the Bill. We will demand improvements and we will harry it here and in Committee. It is not good enough. The industry and Britain deserve better. Labour is bad for business.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—I followed his speech with interest. It is extraordinary that he launched such a savage attack on a measure that was in the Conservative party's manifesto. It will be interesting to see whether other Conservative Members follow his line and oppose their manifesto, or whether some of them agreed with the manifesto on which they fought the election.
I want to confine my remarks to three specific points. I want to talk about some of the newly emerging demands for radio spectrum that underline the Bill's importance in ensuring that spectrum is available in a properly managed way; I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for clarification about the Bill's impact on existing operators, because some confusion about that was raised in interventions from Conservative Members; and I want to make a suggestion for an addition to the Bill.
Many new demands for spectrum are emerging. Many of the points I want to make arise from discussions with the Telecommunications Users Association of which I have been the honorary president for a couple of years. It is an entirely unpaid role, which I have already declared, but I do so again now. It keeps me in touch with developments in the telecommunications industry and with the needs of small and large telecommunications users. One of the central contentions of the association is that for many users, particularly small business users, there is very little competition between suppliers of telecommunications services.
The previous Government talked a great deal about introducing competition to the telecommunications marketplace. In the City of London, there is a great deal of competition between rival suppliers and that is welcome. For big business pretty well anywhere in the country, there are plenty of suppliers from which to choose. However, in many parts of the country, and in many towns outside the major metropolitan areas, there is all too often no real choice of supplier in practice for small businesses.
New uses of the radio spectrum, commercialised as the Bill envisages, may provide the means to offer the variety and choice of services that has been lacking. One of the important benefits of the Bill will be to ensure that radio spectrum is available in an efficient way to provide for the new services that have not been secured under the previous arrangements.
The Broadband Wireless Association promotes wireless as the
low cost gateway to interactive television.
It has a conference about that in a couple of months. It says that the build cost per customer of a cable-type service provided by wireless will be about half that of a traditional digging-up-the-pavement cable solution. Assuming that about 30 per cent. penetration is achieved, that significant cost reduction can be secured. A wireless approach to cable transforms the economics of the cable industry. It will make cable economic in rural and other areas where it has been impossible to provide traditional cable services so far.
One of the cable companies with a franchise in Devon wants to use spectrum currently unallocated in the 43 GHz range. There is an impressive new technology, manufactured in the United Kingdom by Philips in Manchester and GEC Marconi among others, which will provide cable-type services by wireless. It is an interesting approach and a good example of the band width-hungry new technologies we will see emerging in the near future. It illustrates how cable operators, confined to their existing franchise areas, could expand to cover other areas quite quickly and relatively inexpensively using wireless technology. Ionica of Cambridge has been mentioned; it is already rolling out local telephone services based on wireless.
All such developments underscore the need for better management of the radio spectrum, including appropriate mechanisms for charging. That is why I support the Bill. It will provide a properly ordered approach to this issue.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech carefully—I almost called him my hon. Friend because we sit on so many Committees together. Does he agree with the Government's view that about £1.5 billion can be raised from the industry? Does he think that that is a good idea or does he think that the money could be better spent within the industry, expanding the service and making it cheaper for consumers?

Mr. Timms: It is difficult to say how much money will be raised by the Bill, but there is no doubt that an orderly approach to spectrum allocation, which is enshrined in this Bill and which was in the Conservative party's manifesto, is the right way to go. My discussions with people in the industry suggest that that is overwhelmingly


their view as well. The mobile operators do not oppose the Bill in the way suggested by the right hon. Member for Wokingham a moment ago.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the way in which the Bill will be put into effect. My hon. Friend said that there will not be blanket auctions for every piece of the spectrum, but I wonder what consultation he envisages will take place before a decision is made to auction any given piece of spectrum. I have two concerns and I shall use as my example the 43 GHz range for broadband wireless to which I have already referred. If that piece of the spectrum was auctioned, there could be a danger of undermining a promising new technology. I know that the Government would not wish to stifle that by piling on heavy charges too early in its development.
Equally, as I understand it, the technology would allow competitors to share the same piece of band width with different companies using the same parcel of band width. An auction would probably not be the most appropriate charging mechanism in that case. What steps will be taken to consult potential participants in the industry before any decision is made to auction a piece of the spectrum? Can the Minister confirm that, before there is an auction of any new part of the spectrum, there will be consultation about the appropriateness of that approach?
I want to clarify the impact of the Bill on existing operators. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the establishment of a spectrum management advisory group. That will be widely welcomed in the industry because it has been pressing for that. What will be the impact on the existing mobile operators? The House of Commons briefing paper suggests that there will not be an impact on existing operators. It gives the example of Vodafone, where the licence has more than 20 years to run. That is almost certainly a misunderstanding, as it relates to its Office of Telecommunications licence. I understand that the Radiocommunications Agency's licence for the use of spectrum by existing operators is renewable each year.
The Bill will lead to a change in the way in which existing operators are charged for the use of spectrum from next year. I believe that that answers the concerns raised by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). The Bill does not mean that charges will not be imposed on existing operators; instead, a level playing field is created for them. Perhaps the Minister can spell out how far thinking has gone on that matter.
My hon. Friend repeated the commitment made in another place that there will be no auctions for existing operators. How will charges for existing operators be computed? Is it realistic to expect that mechanism to be in place by next year?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point that I tried to raise earlier and to which I did not receive a proper answer. As I understand it, the existing licensees, who tend to be big companies, will not be contributing to the £1.5 billion. All the additional money will come from new entrants who, by definition, will be smaller companies.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what my hon. Friend said. He made it clear that existing

operators will not be participating in auctions, but that does not mean that they will not be paying charges. The appropriate mechanism for that will be set out in the Bill.

Mr. Ian Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman considers the financial effects of the Bill, it will be clear to him—it is about the only thing that is clear about the Bill—that the sums of between £500 million and £1.5 billion which will possibly come from auctions are set against an increase in charges to existing operators of only £75 million a year. Even if the industry thinks that that is fair, it wants to know whether one group of operators using a piece of spectrum should pay only an extra £75 million a year, while the new entrants will have to pay £1.5 billion to use exactly the same sort of spectrum.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is supporting my argument; there will be charges on existing operators. I want to know how those charging mechanisms will be established.
I do not know whether Conservative Members agree with their spokesman, but I have no objection to charging for the radio spectrum or to the competitive mechanism that is enshrined in the Bill. Those proposals are entirely appropriate and I do not believe that anyone in the industry or throughout the country seriously objects to them. They are entirely right.
My third concern relates to protecting consumers' interests. I should like to take up the debate initiated in another place, where it was proposed that the Bill should contain an explicit reference to the interests of consumers in relation to the spectrum allocation process. I know that the Telecommunications Users Association supports that idea, but it was opposed by the Minister in another place on the ground that the existing protection of user interests in the Telecommunications Act 1984, which requires Oftel and the Secretary of State to promote the interests of consumers, is sufficient. I am not entirely convinced and I wonder whether the Minister can comment further on that issue. It appears to me that Oftel has no significant locus to look after consumer interests when it comes to spectrum allocation. Is it the Government's intention that consumer interests should be taken into account in that connection? If so, and I am absolutely certain that it is, such consumer interest should be catered for in the Bill.
The Community Media Association—it was known as the Community Radio Association but it was renamed at the weekend—includes a large number of interesting and enterprising members who represent community-based radio and media initiatives. It has stated:
Information technology is essential to assuring freedom of information and expression, social inclusion and cultural diversity. The CMA would like to see amendments brought forward in Committee to take account of the social and cultural benefits of use of the radio spectrum.
No doubt the Committee will wish to consider its concerns.
I have three concerns. First, can we be assured that there will be consultation before a decision is made to auction any given piece of radio spectrum? Secondly, how will the new, different charges be computed for existing mobile operators? Is it realistic to expect such a mechanism to be in place by next year? Thirdly, when determining such matters, will the Bill contain an explicit reference to ensure that consumer interests should be taken into account?
I support the Bill. I am astonished by the stance taken by the Opposition spokesman when it was the Government he supported who started down that road. I warmly commend the Minister for introducing the Bill.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am most grateful to be called so early in the debate. One of the silver linings, albeit unwanted, of the defeat of so many of my colleagues has been that I have been catapulted into being a senior member of the Conservative party. I therefore now get to make my speeches earlier in proceedings. That is a rather sad reflection, but at least it reveals some modesty on our Benches.
I declare an interest as a paid adviser to the Telecommunications Managers Association. On this occasion, however, I specifically asked it not to brief me so that I could feel free to make my views known.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who probed the Minister in exactly the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and other colleagues have sought to do. It is not as though hon. Members and the industry cannot agree on how to go forward to get a good return for the taxpayer while allowing the industry to go forth and multiply. I do not believe that the Minister or his Department have any nasty intent, but I do not trust the Treasury perhaps as much as he does because the Treasury exists to get the maximum return for the taxpayer.
On Second Reading and in Committee, we will try to probe the Minister more about what the Government intend to do. A new entrant to the industry needs to know the Government's intentions to plan for the type of approaches that might be made.
It is easy for existing operators using existing spectrum to rush to cuddle the Government warmly, and even the Opposition, and say that they are keen on the idea of auctioning the rest of the spectrum. Once that is done, the spectrum that those operators already own is instantaneously given a capital value. The farmers hated their milk quotas until they suddenly realised that, overnight, the Government had created a capital asset that they could sell on. After all, they had their milk quotas for nothing. We must be careful about how we deal with such proposals.
My right hon. Friend said that the Opposition were deeply critical of the Bill because we want to get the proposals right. The Bill must not allow the Treasury to rub its hands with glee, saying, "On the first bid we will go for £1.5 billion and see what we can get later." The balance between existing operators and new entrants is crucial and it is a difficult one to strike successfully.
The history of the previous Government's efforts to allocate spectrum and allow television companies to bid for franchises reveals that the most difficult aspect was making the process fair. The arithmetic and problems will not change for the Labour Government. We will therefore be keen to probe the Government to determine what they have in mind. We will want to get as much information as possible, if not on the face of the Bill, at least discussed in Committee. I give Ministers fair notice that we want to hear in Committee exactly what they are thinking of doing. Ministers have benefited from the consultation put

in train by the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), and the information that that has provided.
Many consultation papers were put out by the Radiocommunications Agency and other bodies, so it is not good enough for the Government to say that they will continue with the consultation. If that is what they want to do, let us leave the Bill for a few months and get the consultation over. We and the industry need to know what the Government intend to do.
Although I am sure that the information appears on the face of the Bill, I can never read these things properly, so I want to know whether we are to have the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure for the regulations the Secretary of State will be empowered to make. Often, we receive telephone calls from a business or organisation asking, "Why did you vote to put this charge or this amount of extra tax on me?" and we do not remember doing anything of the sort because the measure disappeared in a resolution that would have needed a prayer laid against it for it to have been brought before us.
It is important that we should know, because we are dealing with a crucial industry that is one of the fastest-expanding parts of our economy. The Minister was somewhat aggressive towards my right hon. and hon. Friends in trying to suggest that we are here simply to oppose the Government. In fact, we are trying to get to the facts and it is important that we do so.
I received a letter from the Federation of Communication Services, which represents existing operators—those who already have spectrum—especially businesses in the mobile telephony sector and those in related fields, such as radio. It is worth reading to the House the list of concerns set out in the letter, although the Minister will be pleased to learn that he has already acceded to the fourth request or demand in the list, which is to the good. The first concern is that
the new spectrum pricing regime should be fair, equitable and transparent and should apply to all users in order to maximise efficient spectrum use".
I have already remarked on the difficulty of achieving fairness and avoiding imposing double taxation or charging people for things of which they had free use in the past while allowing new entrants in and ensuring equity between them and existing operators. That is a difficult balance to strike.
The second point is that there should be a
clear statement of Government policy as to where it will apply auctions and administrative pricing, now and in the future".
The Minister says that that is still being discussed, but before we give the Government the powers they seek, we want to know what they and the Treasury have in mind. We must get clear statements from Ministers.
The FCS's third point is that
the Radio Agency's (RA) ideas for implementing spectrum pricing are at an early stage and require much more thorough analysis of spectrum congestion, monitoring mechanisms and the derivation of the Spectrum Tariff Unit before licence fees can be set. In a combined response to the RA's May 1997 consultative document, the mobile communication industry and radio users proposed a partnership approach with the Agency to develop this new mechanism".
I hope that the Government will look carefully at how to work in partnership with the industry.
The fourth point is one to which, as I said, the Minister has just acceded. It was that
there should be a new consultation body, the Spectrum Management Advisory Group reporting directly to the Minister.
I am keen that the Minister should understand that the existing industry will want to advise Ministers and it is right that it should do that, but I hope that Ministers will take independent advice from users and potential new entrants.
The European Informatics Market Group, which operates within the House, has all of the industry on board and its representatives get together and come up with wonderful reports. As a member of the editorial board, one of my roles is to say, "Hang on a minute. This is the view of the people already here, but we also have to think about the people who may want to come in and, even more important, about the user—the person who has one mobile phone and does not really know what is available, but who has a real interest in ensuring that the products are available at a sensible price." That is extremely important.
The key questions posed by the FCS are:
what is Government policy on the application of administrative pricing and auctions; whether Government can give assurance to small and medium sized businesses that the spectrum they currently use, or may wish to access in future to provide the same services, will not be auctioned;
and
whether the Government will adopt a partnership approach with industry and users to develop the implementation mechanisms for administrative pricing.
Those are valid questions and they must be addressed in Committee.
I turn now to the interesting case of the fishermen. The amount of money involved is small, but the fishing industry is deeply annoyed and we all know how much pressure the industry has been under in recent years. Fishermen are now subject to additional expense because—quite rightly—we have demanded that the safety of those who work on fishing boats must be paramount. In addition to normal safety gear, which almost requires boats to be extended to carry all that the Government want them to have on board, they must have access to radios.
In many cases, the radios that boats are required to have on board—some requirements are already mandatory, while some are still being pushed through the system—are used only in emergencies. Many of my fishermen are inshore fishermen and the best way for them to ring up their wives or their fish merchant is to use a mobile phone, not to use the radio to which they often do not have immediate access. However, to get in touch with the emergency services when they see someone else in trouble—another vessel reports a vessel in trouble in the vast majority of cases—they have to have the radios on board.
A long time ago, it was brought to my attention that the sum fishermen had to pay for their licences under the existing regime was subsidising those who install in their fancy yacht radios for leisure and other purposes. Providers of services for leisure fishermen who used their radios far more often got a cheaper licence than professional fishermen who required a radio for safety reasons.
I had a good response from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton when he was the Minister. He met representatives from the fishing industry and felt that changes should be made to regulations. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be upset if I offer to supply copies of the correspondence between us; the last letter I received directly from him was dated 29 October 1996, in which he agreed that a case had been made out.
The current Minister may have access to a copy of the letter dated 3 April 1997 from the chief executive of the Radiocommunications Agency, Jim Norton, in which he said that the agency was ready to make a decision. If the Conservative Government had been re-elected, we would probably have enacted that decision by now, but I shall give the new Ministers time to look at the evidence. They should try to do something for the fishermen, who are using the radios for their own safety and for that of others on the high seas.
This is an important Bill, but it could slow the wonderful expansion of our mobile communications and other types of communication. In many countries, the Government have said that only so much spectrum is available, held an auction and people have paid vast sums for it. Then, suddenly, the Treasury has said "Oh, hang on—there's another lump of spectrum over here." Suddenly, twice as much spectrum has become available, and the people who have paid a high price for what they have are stuck with it and have to pass on high charges to their customers, whereas other operators entering the market later have paid a much lower price because of the greater availability of spectrum. It is, as I say, a difficult balance to strike and we must be careful not to repeat the mistakes that have been made by other countries.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: Speaking as a former psychiatrist, I must begin by wondering what the shadow Secretary of State was on today. There have been times in my life when I could have done with some of it.
I have a confession to make: I am a closet technology user. I even joined the internet this summer. I do not yet have a page on it, but that will come once I learn to use it properly. I even have a pager—although I am not sure where it is at the moment. I put it away somewhere at the start of the summer recess and have never found it again. I also have a mobile phone. I hasten to add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not have it with me in the Chamber; I would not want to incur your displeasure if it went off in the middle of my short speech this evening.
I want first to refer to the question of job losses and to try to put it in context. Just one company, Orange, has in the past two or three years spent £1.5 billion on developing its mobile telephony network. It was prepared to put up that much money, which I would call a huge sum. Indeed, it may be an over-optimistic sum given how much the company may expect to recoup, but it is small beer compared with the money that large companies will invest in the development of telecommunications over the next 10 years. The sums we are talking about pale into insignificance compared with the sums involved in setting up networks.
The shadow Secretary of State, for reasons of his own, was being somewhat malicious today. I do not seriously believe that Conservative Members think that there will be serious job losses as a result of this relatively minor—although important—measure.
In line with what we tend to do in the Labour party these days, I want to stress a point about education. It is clear that the shadow Minister and his colleagues learned nothing from the speech by the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry. As I am a great traditionalist in educational matters, I intend to resort to traditional methods and to repeat what the Minister said in a slightly different form, in the hope that, by means of rote learning, some of it may stick in the minds—if they have them—of Conservative Members. Thereafter we may not hear so much nonsense from them. I hasten to dissociate that remark from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who as always made a sensible speech.
After 10 years of attending these technology debates, I know that the same old suspects turn up for all of them. I am glad to say that there are some new faces around today; perhaps they will enlighten us, perhaps not—I live in hope.
I offer a whole-hearted welcome to the Bill, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her departmental colleagues on the clarity of its provisions. Like most modern Bills, this is largely an enabling measure. Many of the detailed provisions will emerge later. That follows the example given us in full measure by the Tories, and we intend to follow it ruthlessly now that we are in government. While the use of statutory instruments may be deplored when one disagrees with their contents, when one does agree with them they are a convenient way of putting legislation into practice. They allow us time to get the Bill on the statute book and then to unravel some of the knotty problems that turn up, as they always do, at a later date.
The Bill establishes certain principles of which I am wholly in favour. Indeed, I argued forcefully for them before the last election, and I was pleased that the then Secretary of State, Ian Lang, took them up. I am only sorry that his successor in the Tory party seems to have disowned what Ian Lang said. I wonder how many more of the former Government's policies will be disowned by Conservative spokesmen in the coming weeks and months.
I also congratulate my colleagues on the speed with which the Bill has been introduced. The Bill had its Second Reading in another place on 5 June, a mere four weeks after Parliament reassembled. It is a sensible and long overdue legislative measure that will help to establish some order in what is rapidly becoming, if left uncontrolled, a chaotic and crowded market.
That market is probably our key economic sector—communications, both broadcast and point-to-point. I look forward keenly to future DTI Bills. I understand that there is to be one on competition policy shortly. We strenuously advocated such a measure when in opposition, but shamefully the Conservative Government avoided such a Bill. If I may be permitted a small passing indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might I ask if it is too much to hope for a Bill or a statement on energy policy, another of my major interests? The Minister has a rather resigned look on his face at that suggestion, so perhaps he will not get to his feet to grant my request. I regret that, but perhaps once these other Bills are out of the way he will be able to devote his energies to a subject that is of great strategic importance to this country.
Radio-based communication is a key component in the rapidly converging field of the information super-highway which, as everyone in the Chamber will know—those not

interested in the subject do not bother to attend these debates—is an amalgamation of telecommunications, broadcasting and computing in one huge and rather diverse entity. If successfully developed, it will bring vast economic and social benefits to our country.
I am well aware of all the hype surrounding convergence. As I said at the outset, I am a rather reluctant user of technology even though I understand it well enough. Sometimes I do not have the time to be bothered with it. It brings problems as well as solutions, but overall it will be beneficial and it is to be encouraged for that reason.
It is no exaggeration to say that our future economic success will depend on how well and how quickly the super-highway becomes fully established. It was the previous Administration, I admit, who were responsible for the rapid introduction of full competition to our telecommunications market. That has given us a competitive advantage over our slower European neighbours. It is fun to watch the antics in Germany and France as they reluctantly attempt to privatise just a small part of their telecommunications system. It makes one realise that it is just as well that ours was privatised when it was. It pays to recognise that not everything done by previous Administrations was bad, and there is no doubt that the early freeing up of our telecommunications market was a very good thing.
Now that we have this competitive advantage, it is up to us to exploit it to the full. I honestly believe that the Bill is a significant step towards maximising that advantage. By reducing the influence of one of the key obstacles to progress, the shortage of radio spectrum, the Bill will give us a better chance to develop the market quickly.
Radio-based communication on a mass scale is a relatively recent phenomenon. It has grown up in little more than a decade from a patchy service mainly based around major conurbations to a virtually universal service—although some of the wilds of Scotland are still not covered. The phones do not always work up there, which is a great pity. The ubiquitous mobile phone accompanies us everywhere, except into this Chamber. Mobile phones are not much use, however, on the east coast rail network, which seems to have more black spots than—I am not quite sure what comparison to use: too many, in any case. The development of networks and the use of more spectrum will allow increased coverage of such areas. I do not enjoy having to try six times to get through when I am on a train journey. I resent that all the more because I use a digital phone which is not supposed to encounter such problems.
Radio-based communications are used widely by businesses and private users. They are used by taxi companies, by the new system for tracing stolen vehicles, by the emergency services and in new technologies such as global positioning. I know that I cut a rather unlikely figure as a hillwalker in Scotland, but people do get caught out by fog, rain and snow in the hills. On such occasions this type of technology can even be life-saving. Global positioning, traffic management and all types of things will add to the future load—quite apart from developments in broadcasting, which I shall come to shortly.
Radio communication competes with and is complementary to a fixed-link communication system based on copper wire, fibre-optic and co-axial cables, with


which we are familiar. Within the next few years, the introduction of the universal mobile telecommunications service will revolutionise personal communications in this country in a way that few of us imagine. It will reduce costs and should serve to allow access to the technology to anyone who wants it.
Some observers believe that a combination of radio links to the home and a fibre-optic fixed-link network for longer-distance transmission of information is the way in which the country should go, and that it could drive out the slower competitive systems, especially if considerable cost advantages are quickly gained by introducing a system that is cheaper to install.
Digital services have developed in parallel with that general increase in the use of radio spectrum. Digital phones are now commonplace. The Broadcasting Act 1996 was aimed at encouraging the rapid introduction of digital television and radio services, offering us more channels, better reception and enhanced services. We are still waiting, but some time in the next year the television should come limping along. Who knows—perhaps some time in the following year, radio will follow suit. One can only hope.
Digital services have the advantage of requiring less spectrum than their analogue counterparts, and once they completely replace them will allow us a massive increase in the volume of radio-based traffic, as will new technologies such as the compression techniques, which have been developed at Stamford and other universities, that will allow us to transmit far more data over a relevant piece of spectrum than has been possible. Unfortunately, at the same time we must continue to broadcast the older analogue services, which are greedy in the use of spectrum. In the first instance, therefore, the introduction of digital technology merely adds more to the burden—it does not help us much in the short term.
Analogue services will continue to be broadcast for a considerable time, as I reckon that the changeover will be relatively slow. Market research has shown that the people who are likely to switch to digital television are those who already hold a cable or satellite contract, and that those who do not are far less likely to do so. However, some time in future they may—perhaps in the third or fourth Labour Government after this one, about 10 or 15 years from now. I am glad to see that the Opposition still have a sense of humour—they will need it in years to come. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has a reasonable majority, so he may well still be in the House then, remembering these remarks; I may be here myself.
[Interruption.] This is a brief summary of the present technological situation—the base on which we are working. We have a scarce resource, radio spectrum, which until now has been treated almost as a free good. We know what happens to free goods. The hon. Member for South Dorset has just left, but hon. Members should take fish as an example if they want to know what happens to a free good when it is ruthlessly exploited. We need a form of effective management. The most effective system of management is through price, and I cannot understand how the Conservative party can reject a pricing mechanism for establishing a market in a service. It strikes me as basic economics and common sense. When we cannot think of another way of doing it

effectively, there is no alternative. I wonder where I have heard that phrase before. Come on; we are slow tonight. [Laughter]. That's better.
We have a scarce resource, which a growing number of users wish to exploit. We have a new technology, digitally based, which will ultimately ease the problem but which exacerbates it in the short term. That is the rationale for the Bill. We need a coherent strategy for managing radio spectrum. It depends on several key elements, but effective allocation by an economic pricing mechanism must be the basic component.
Quite simply, the Bill introduces a necessary pricing mechanism and sets up a framework for the future allocation. By insisting that price is used to maximise the efficient allocation of spectrum rather than as a means of maximising revenue, I hope that the Department has managed to avoid the pitfalls and problems manifested by recent US attempts to do the same thing. I admit that it disappoints me. I see nothing wrong in seeking new sources of revenue. That is the Government's job. If they find new sources of revenue, they can tax people less in other areas, which strikes me as common sense. I accept, however, that in this instance—

Mr. Lansley: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view, therefore, that the Government should be thinking of compensating reductions in business taxation to offset the increase in business costs that derives from the pricing of the radio spectrum?

Dr. Moonie: Certainly not. The present market in mobile communications has shown us that companies are enormously profitable and can well stand to bear a bit more for the resources that they use. It will have not the slightest impact on their business, it will have minimal impact on their customers and everyone benefits from a better mechanism. That strikes me as a commonsense mechanism to introduce, and one which deserves support from all quarters of the House.
The fact that the Department has concentrated on using price as an effective allocation mechanism rather than purely as a means of raising additional revenue may help us to avoid the pitfalls that befell the US system. The US Government were less effective—too greedy. They tried to maximise revenue instead of maximising efficient allocation of spectrum and, in doing so, encouraged companies to overstep the mark and submit bids that were too high. Some of the companies failed to survive as a result. The mechanisms that we are introducing by means of the Bill should avoid that.
It is right that Governments should retain the power not to accept only the highest bid—that they should examine the bids and decide which one it is appropriate to accept. Before any hon. Member tries to intervene, I should say that I accept that that raises problems in itself, and I trust that the Government will carefully consider those problems in Committee and thereafter before they introduce the appropriate regulations that govern how the system works.
Existing users are exempted for the duration of present licences, but not for ever. That is a source of some self-congratulation to them and some disappointment to those who might wish the Government to maximise their revenue more quickly. It is a generally accepted principle, however, that existing contracts are honoured, so good


luck to those existing users, however advantageous it is for them; they managed to get the contract for the spectrum. Although they will not get it again, they can take full advantage of it in the next few years.
Ultimately, almost all users will have to pay a realistic market price for the spectrum that they wish to use. People talk about new entrants to the market as though a tuppenny-ha'penny company will be set up in a back room. It will not be like that. The existing companies may decide to expand into other areas and find themselves bidding for additional spectrum. That will have the additional advantage that they will seek to use the spectrum that they have more effectively before entering the market, which should reduce the pressure on the new spectrum that we are trying to allocate. It will ensure that every piece of spectrum that has been allocated already is used to maximum effect.
Would that some of the users who have had spectrum allocated to them, such as the BBC and the Ministry of Defence—the arch-hoarder of spectrum in this country—could be encouraged, through an appropriate pricing mechanism, to disgorge some of the spectrum that they have. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry is well aware of the problem and I am sure that he has at the back of his mind a way of ensuring that they are gently encouraged to cough up the bits that they do not need, so that other people may get access to them and use them more effectively.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Ministers will consider a small suggestion. There is a plethora of regulators in broadcasting and communication. In the past we advocated rationalisation, and I believe that the system that is proposed—in addition to the advisory committee, which I welcome—might work better, allocating licences on a qualitative assessment of bids, if it were made part of the remit of an external regulator, such as the Ofcom that was proposed to replace the Office of Telecommunications. Ministers might care to consider that in detail. The provisions in clause 4 give the Secretary of State the power to do something along those lines, should she wish. I certainly hope that it will be given careful consideration.
I should like now to say a few words on behalf of the Commercial Radio Companies Association, the chief executive of which, Paul Brown, wrote to me last week. I have had a close association with him over many years and told him that I was happy to put the points that he wanted to raise to my colleagues in the Department in the hope that they could give some satisfaction when summing up on the Bill. I shall quote from the letter of 22 October because that will be easier than trying to paraphrase it. It says:
I remain sure that there is a case for an amendment to the legislation which the Government might feel able to consider…
Spectrum is a national asset. Its use should be well controlled and priced. Commercial radio welcomes the Government's move towards increasing the efficiency with which spectrum is used. The Secretary of State's powers over spectrum usage, as laid down in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, have always been significant and wide. They have been handled sensitively and responsibly and there is no reason to believe that they will not continue to be so.
The proposed new legislation rejects the old idea that spectrum users should only be charged pretty much the price associated with its management. In the future, prices will be based on the commercial value of the spectrum being used by each Wireless Telegraphy licensee. As it says in the preamble, 'the Bill provides for fees, other than fees for licences for television reception, to be set by regulations having regard to various other factors or by auction'.

It is clearly right for the Government to have flexible powers to ensure that space is made swiftly available to new digital technologies and new ideas for spectrum use as yet unthought of. It is also right that changes in charges and usage should be preceded by consultation as clause 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill requires so that the fairness of price increases or usage changes can be fully debated before they occur …
We have also been gratified to read and hear the statements that have been made that the Bill is not intended to require UK broadcasters to bid for spectrum in the same way as, for example, mobile telephone companies will be required to do. We note, however, that this protection is not afforded on the face of the Bill. We would therefore like to propose an amendment which the Government might favour and put forward as its own.
An amendment to clause 3(1) would suffice: we have in mind something in line of 2 of page 3 of the Bill…along the lines…applications for the grant of wireless telegraphy licences, except those for the broadcast of a television or radio service for reception by the general public, must be made in accordance with a procedure which.
I should be grateful if the Government would look at that. I shall send them a copy of the letter so that they need not comb through Hansard for it, and I hope that they will give it a sympathetic hearing. The suggested amendment is a small change but it would be greatly appreciated by those concerned.
I conclude my remarks by referring to a sector that is often overlooked as being too unimportant for active consideration. I refer to the developing field of community radio and local television, now known as the Community Media Association after a conference which I attended and spoke at last week in Edinburgh. The association has become an umbrella organisation for several bodies concerned with small-scale broadcasting. Those bodies provide local services and often information, are usually non-commercial in nature and serve a clearly defined small geographic area or part of a large urban conurbation. They provide a much needed community resource.
The sector might be forgiven for seeing itself permanently cast in the biblical role of Lazarus, condemned to pick up the crumbs from the rich man's table. However, it is far too valuable a resource to our society for that and is destined to play a clear role in this country. A party such as ours, dedicated to the inclusion of all our communities in our plans for society, must afford it some recognition. I see no other reason, other than a slight oversight, why there should not be specific reference somewhere in the Bill to the needs of small-scale broadcasters.
Spectrum pricing will, after all, raise resources. I take it that it is not intended that those resources should be raised from small-scale operators as their needs must be met in areas where there is tremendous commercial competition for the bigger chunks of spectrum that are needed for larger services. It is good that we are to raise that money. The question remains whether a little of it could filter through to the worthwhile people on whose behalf I am speaking this evening. I am sure that I shall get a sympathetic hearing, if not a completely positive response, from my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
May I outline the aims of the community media charter, as they could be usefully incorporated into our thinking? I shall not quote the charter in its entirety as it is rather long, but it says:
To promote the right to communicate, to assist the free flow of information and opinions, to encourage creative expression and to contribute to the democratic process and a pluralistic society;


To provide access to training, production and distribution facilities, to encourage local creative talent, to foster local traditions, and to provide services for the benefit, entertainment, education and development of their audience;
To seek to have their ownership representative of local geographically recognisable communities or of communities of common interest;
To be editorially independent of government, commercial and religious institutions and political parties in determining their programming policy;
To provide a right of access to minority and marginalised groups and to promote and protect cultural and linguistic diversity;
To honestly inform their audience on the basis of information drawn from a variety of sources and to provide a right of reply to any person or organisation subject to serious misrepresentation;
To be established as organisations which are not run with a view to profit and to ensure their independence by being financed from a variety of sources"—
one of which is before us today—
To recognise and respect the contribution of volunteers, to recognise the right of paid workers to join trade unions and to provide satisfactory working conditions for both;
To operate management, programming and employment practices which oppose discrimination".
It is a worthy charter which the whole House should be prepared to support. Its aims should, on consideration, receive at least a nod from Ministers, if not definite inclusion in this small Bill. The hundreds of groups in all our constituencies, which are involved in trying to develop those worthwhile new services, would welcome some reference to it.
As I said earlier, I welcome the Bill. I trust that, in the light-hearted way in which I have tried to deliver this speech, I may have imparted a little more learning to the hon. Members who are left on the Opposition Benches. I wish my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench every success in the progress of this measure.

Mr. Colin Breed: Much of what I wanted to say has been said in one way or another, which is almost inevitable. This relatively short Bill, which will have a profound effect on people during the next few decades, is broadly welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, if not others. We have a few concerns, however, which I shall outline in a moment.
There can be no doubt that the management of the radio spectrum and encouragement of its efficient use are vital to the future of communications, particularly as the resource is clearly under considerable pressure due to the enormous expansion of radio wave usage in recent years. Technological advances in the radio spectrum have increased its availability, and services are now provided at much higher frequencies, which has increased the usable spectrum. Even so, demand continues to exceed availability.
We recognise, therefore, the imperative to improve the management and efficiency of the radio spectrum, and we accept that changes to the present regulatory system, which is based on the administrative costs of managing the spectrum and not on its economic value, are a realistic way forward. We accept that, because charging has not been related to value, a distortion in demand has been caused, with users having no real incentive to use the spectrum to which they currently have access in the most efficient way.
The need to increase the availability of spectrum and use it more efficiently is overwhelming. We accept the essential provision of the Bill, which changes the method of charging from one based on cost to a more economic value, even if it raises more money, which will make the Treasury happy.
The Bill's other main provision gives the power to auction some licences. We have concerns about that, some of which have already been raised today. I accept that assurances have been given that auctions will not be applied to existing operators, at least not during the period of their current operational licences, but we are concerned about the principle of auctions for future allocations of spectrum.
Most hon. Members will remember the experience of the auction process in the television sector in the recent past. Although there was a quality threshold before companies were even allowed to enter the auction process, it clearly favoured those with the greatest financial muscle. Some bidders paid far too much, and others acquired their licences for next to nothing. That could happen again, and if it did, it would be less than positive for consumers.
There are always dangers in the auction process when it is used in a new marketplace, and one where bidders are conscious of the need to retain their market share or obtain new market share. There is an obvious danger that spectrum will be purchased not only by those wishing to use it, but by those wishing to have it as an investment in a resource with clear scarcity value. They may want to retain their allocation and sell it at a profit. That, surely, is not the object of the exercise.
It remains far from clear what is proposed for the existing licences if they are not to be exposed to the auction process, and whether and how those licences will be brought into line with the new charges. If they are not, there will be a major distortion in the market, which will probably favour those who were in first.
Therefore, one of the most important details will be the way in which competition is to be established between those who already hold spectrum and those who wish to enter this new marketplace. That is particularly important for the new companies, of which there are quite a few, which are developing the leading-edge technologies, such as fixed radio access. Uncertainty about the future costs could severely deter new capital investment for the development of new services, so it is vital that those companies know exactly what they are letting themselves in for in the auction process.
It is essential to control the on-selling of licences, if that is possible—perhaps it will not be possible—to avoid the creation of a secondary market, which is often almost entirely unregulated, at least at the beginning. Subsequent attempts to regulate it would not meet with much success.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) mentioned the use of radios by fishermen. Perhaps we can learn lessons from the fishing quota licences. The debacle that was caused in our fishing industry should make us mindful of the consequence of creating marketplace conditions for a national asset, which can then be exploited by commercial concerns in a secondary marketplace.
Another lesson often learnt far too late is the need to consult industry before far-reaching legislation is enacted. I am delighted to hear of the new advisory board that is


to be set up. I am sure that that will be welcomed by the industry as a whole, which will have to operate within the new legislative environment. That is essential if we are to get the efficient use of the spectrum to deliver the commercial and public benefits to all of us. Broad agreement on all aspects will be necessary, and the industry must be aware of Government intentions.
I believe that the industry broadly agrees with the measures in the Bill. Although it may not be delighted at having to pay more charges, the industry will recognise that it is a sensible way forward. Future policy developments must be subject to the proper consultation.
The interests of the consumer must be given due weight. The Government's review of utility regulation will closely examine consumer representation. The competition Bill will give new rights to consumers and organisations representing consumers. In the light of measures to enshrine consumer interests within telecom regulation, it seems a little odd that they are being overlooked in the regulation of the radio spectrum. Perhaps that aspect could be developed.

Mr. Fallon: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman would welcome an amendment in Committee to include in clause 2 specific reference to consumer interests?

Mr. Breed: That is one of the matters that we shall raise in Committee. It is important that consumer interests are properly represented. I shall certainly seek some amendment in Committee.
On such a technical subject, it is sensible that independent advice through a statutory requirement for consultation should be incorporated in the Bill at the outset. Perhaps the Government will consider that slight tweak.
In view of the transparency of the auction and charging process, which will be vital if it is to receive the support of industry, it will surely be necessary to ensure that the current culture of secrecy in the Radiocommunications Agency is changed to a culture of greater openness. I recognise that, because of the Ministry of Defence involvement, there has been a culture of secrecy, but I am not sure that that can continue if people are expected to operate in an auction process in a more transparent environment.
Sensible measures properly to manage the nation's asset, together with realistic charges based on value rather than cost, should not become the open-ended tax-raising measure, concern about which dominated the early part of the debate. The measure could be milked by successive Chancellors as a cash cow, but I do not believe that that is the Government's intention.
If licences are to cost more, and the aim is to increase efficiency, a clear link should be established between increases in cost and the improved efficiency of the spectrum. That could be written into the Bill. It would provide a mechanism to reinforce what the Minister said, and creating a link between increased efficiency and increased cost would ensure that in future money is not raised solely for tax purposes. If that is not done, it could leave the door open to abuse of the powers by increasing licence charges without commensurate improvement in the management of the spectrum.
The length of the Bill is no indication of its likely consequences for the country. Although they have considerable merit and are broadly supported by the

industry, and by Liberal Democrats, important points of detail are raised and must be tackled. I have raised some of those and intend to pursue them in Committee. At this stage, however, I am delighted to assure the Minister of our support for the Bill.

Ms Linda Perham: My reason for speaking in the debate is to raise the concerns of many of my constituents in Ilford, North who are licensed taxi drivers and who work on radio taxi circuits. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for referring in his opening remarks to the importance of radio to the taxi industry.
I have spoken to the Joint Radio Taxicab Association, the trade body that represents London's five licensed radio taxi circuits—Computer Cab, Radio Taxis, Dial-a-Cab, Datacab and Harrow Radio Taxis. I am grateful for the association's advice.
It is difficult to appreciate the accelerating pace at which the taxi industry is developing. One hundred years ago, in August 1897, the London Electric Cab company of Juxton street, Lambeth, began operating in the west end and City with 12 environmentally friendly electric cabs, which could be hired for the day for 25 shillings. That was probably a lot of money then. Fifty years ago this year, the last horse-cab driver handed in his licence. In that same year, 1947—in which I was born—the first radio cab service in Great Britain began operating in Cambridge, which is now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who sits next to me.
The radio taxi industry at present employs more than 6,500 licensed taxi drivers and more than 550 administrative staff. It has an annual turnover of more than £100 million and has invested more than £23 million in the past three years—following consultation with the Radiocommunications Agency—in updating its radio systems. That investment means that taxi orders are now dispatched by data rather than voice control, which has provided great efficiency gains in the spectrum that taxis utilise.
Issues affecting this sector of the radiocommunications industry were not raised during the passage of the Bill in the other place, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to highlight some of them now. With this legislation, the Government are rightly seeking to introduce effective management and fair pricing of the radio spectrum. As the Minister said, effective management of the finite spectrum resource is essential if growth and innovation are to be sustained. I congratulate the Government on the reassurances that they have provided already about their intentions regarding fees, auctions and security of tenure for small and medium-sized businesses that already use spectrum frequencies.
Members of the Joint Radio Taxicab Association are grateful for the open and constructive way in which officials and Ministers have approached those issues during their consultations. They are particularly reassured that the proposed fee increases to be incurred by businesses, such as taxi firms, will be modest and subject to an industry consultation exercise. I welcome that. The industry is also reassured that there are no proposals to require existing licensees to enter into auctions for the right to continue to provide their current services within their existing spectrum allocation.
I shall now address the principal change in the legislation: spectrum pricing will be charged on its economic value to the holder rather than on administrative cost, as occurs under current provision. The new legislation will permit the Secretary of State to apply pricing differentials to the allocation of spectrum frequencies. As I understand it, spectrum fees will be set having regard to the amount of spectrum bandwidth occupied, the location where the frequencies are to be used, whether the frequencies are to be exclusive to a single user or shared, and according to market demand.
While that is a sensible move, which will no doubt encourage many users to use the spectrum more efficiently, it seems to me that we should take the final step to ensure optimum usage of frequencies by monitoring the efficiency of spectrum usage and by encouraging the most efficient users of spectrum in some way. I urge the Secretary of State to consider utilising, or adding to, the powers in the Bill so that she may monitor the efficient usage of frequencies that are already possessed. When a company bids for further frequencies, the application could be judged not just on price, but on the applicant's record of using the spectrum allocation efficiently.
A system that relies on price alone to promote efficiency will inevitably have certain flaws. Under such a system, the cost of efficiency is left to the individual company to decide. The company with the ability to absorb or pass on any increased licensing costs will have no real incentive to become a more efficient channel user. Indeed, the exclusivity of a channel, rather than the cost, may be the key element for the user.
There is also a danger that a company will overstretch when purchasing its spectrum capacity and not have sufficient resources to invest in the technology necessary for managing the spectrum well. Such situations—for reasons of strategy, ineptitude or a lack of resources—will have a major detrimental effect on the growth of successful, efficient companies, including radio taxi circuit members, who have just spent more than £20 million moving from voice to data dispatch of taxi orders.
If the Government are to prevent such problems, there must be a process for assessing spectrum usage. I understand that the technology exists to undertake that kind of exercise. The Radiocommunications Agency is able to monitor channel occupancy regularly, and therefore remove exclusive spectrum assignments from users who do not meet designated usage criteria. I believe that that is neither a difficult nor an expensive activity to undertake, and the costs of such an exercise could be built into the fees of the industries that would benefit from promoting efficiency. I look forward to hearing the Government's view about that suggestion.
I am concerned that, as demand for taxi services grows, radio taxi circuits—which have spent millions improving their spectral efficiency—will be outbid for extra spectrum space by companies that may have more funds to spend, but not nearly such a good record in using their spectrum allocation efficiently; or that the necessary frequencies will not be available because other companies are using their allocations inefficiently.
There is little doubt that demand for the services of radio taxi companies will continue to increase. The taxi is set to play a vital role in the Government's proposals to develop an integrated transport policy for London. The taxi provides a realistic alternative to the private car in London, and it fills gaps in services that public transport cannot meet. Most importantly, more than 95 per cent. of taxis on the radio circuits are already wheelchair-accessible. That provides a public transport service option for disabled people that most bus, train and tube services cannot match.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that London is rightly renowned, nationally and worldwide, for the high vehicle and service standards provided by our licensed taxi trade. I would welcome a reassurance from the Minister that the Government recognise the vital public service and transport role that taxi companies provide, and that this factor will always be taken into account when applying the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: During my time at the Department of Trade and Industry more than a decade ago, I was involved occasionally in radio matters. In those days, we were engaged in the business of trying to shut down pirate radio stations—so I am rather pleased that we have moved to a more liberal frame of mind. That is due largely to Conservative Governments, and we are now beginning to see some of the market and commercial benefits to be derived from a more liberal telecommunications field.
There is something slightly curious about the way in which Ministers and Labour Back Benchers have approached the question of manifestos in terms of the Bill. I have often heard Labour Members insist that they must proceed quickly with a course of action because they have a mandate through their manifesto. They imply that it is rather presumptuous of Conservative Members to seek to question, criticise or impede the progress of legislation when the Government are proceeding in accordance with their manifesto mandate. Yet, this evening, Labour Members say that we must proceed quickly and that Conservative Members must not offer constructive criticism or question the legislation because it was part of the Conservative manifesto. I am struck by the sense of irony and the role reversal—perhaps that will develop further as the evening progresses.
The Labour manifesto did not cover this measure—the Labour party did not see fit to tell the electorate that it proposed to introduce legislation in this area so soon after the election. None the less, it has proceeded. Having chosen to introduce the Bill, we must examine whether the Government have addressed all the issues arising from it, not so much as a point of principle but as a point of practice. Many such matters were not addressed adequately in the Minister's introductory speech or in his responses to interventions.
I begin with the view that we should have an efficient method of allocating the radio spectrum, and that markets generally are an efficient method of resource allocation. However, the method of pricing and the extent and character of the marketplace that it created are of the essence in determining whether it remains an efficient method of allocating spectrum. I shall raise two points in relation to this before moving on to a number of points of detail.
If a purchaser has bought spectrum but is unable effectively to use it during the life of the licence, will they be able to assign it, and what freedoms of use would be attached were they to do so? Could a secondary market be created? If it could, I suspect that we could expect the economic efficiency of spectrum allocation to be maximised. If not, we run the risk of under-utilisation or under-investment by licence holders, who may not, in the later stages of the life of their licence, be the operators at the cutting edge of technology or commercial development.
Secondly, how long will the licences last? Once a licence is sold, the character of market pressure to improve spectrum utilisation for a particular operator changes. Licence holders will become aware, rightly, of the need to secure maximum value from their use of the spectrum over the licence period, but they will also be aware that alternative users will be able to bid in due course to take over that spectrum. Over the life of a licence, therefore, the balance of these considerations will shift from the former to the latter, reducing in some cases the potential and returns from new investment. Short-term licences, therefore, hold the risk of under-investment by licence holders. Longer licences run the risk of creating barriers to market entry for new and innovative operators. That is why we should look for licences of a realistic length, but—I emphasise but—with real scope to assign the spectrum to others in a secondary market.
That brings me to a related point. The Government have stressed that existing licensees will not be required to enter an auction—indeed, the Minister reiterated this in his opening speech—for the right to continue to provide their current services within their existing spectrum allocation. Fair as that may seem, we have to recognise that, for the life of existing licences—and some of them are quite lengthy—there will be a clear market benefit to existing licensees, and, depending on the cost to new operators of the spectrum they acquire, the latter could be at a significant market disadvantage.
That may be sufficient in some circumstances to deter new entrants to the marketplace and hence frustrate the objectives of the legislation in stimulating new commercial and technological developments. It is therefore very important that, in their licensing of spectrum use for new—I emphasise new—generation services, especially third generation mobile telephony, to which the Minister referred, existing and new operators should, so far as possible, be required to bid for spectrum use for this purpose on an equivalent basis.
There are a number of specific matters on which I should be grateful if the Minister would comment when she replies. First, will the Government undertake to protect the interests of radio astronomy, such as the Mullard radio astronomy observatory in my constituency, which provides valuable scientific information and research? The efficient use of radio spectrum could assist the process of moving from analogue to digital. What does the Minister believe the consequences of the Bill will be in that respect?
Thirdly, my right hon. and hon. Friends have rightly said this is a substantial revenue-raising measure. Although I would not dispute the Minister's contention that hypothecation directly should not arise, industry should reasonably look for a commitment that revenue raising is not the principal purpose of the measure, and that therefore, when the opportunity arises, corresponding

reductions in business costs should occur elsewhere, or there should be an expectation that the stimulation of technological and commercial support to industry from the Department of Trade and Industry should reflect the fact that industry is making a further significant contribution to Government revenues in this area. I see no evidence of that at the moment from the Government; merely the smile on the Treasury's Cheshire cat.
Fourthly, what measures do the Government propose to take to frustrate collusion at auctions for spectrum? In that area, some of the experience in the United States was unhappy. The Government would need to combat that possibility.
Fifthly, in an intervention, I referred to clause 3 and asked what further matters the Secretary of State would take into account when determining to whom licences would be given at an action. In subsequent debate, we have heard from Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Members that consumer and other interests are being pressed on Ministers as relevant to the decision whether to give a licence to a particular bidder at auction, and that it should not simply be the highest bidder.
We need to know—if not on Second Reading, in Committee—what matters will be specified and under what circumstances Ministers would regard it as right not to award a licence to the highest bidder at an auction. I reiterate a point made, rightly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) relating to the cost to the public sector. There are significant uses of radio spectrum in the public sector. The public sector will be required to meet the costs. We need to know what the costs will be. How will they be met? What will be the implications for public services?
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) set the Bill in its proper context. Where the Government have picked up on the policies of the previous Government, they have so far added little, and lost something in translation.

Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his Front-Bench colleague that the Conservative policy in this area was a mistake?

Mr. Lansley: When the hon. Gentleman comes to look at it, he will see that my right hon. Friend was not saying that the previous Government's policy had been a mistake. He simply said that he was skeptical—and always had been—of the policy of spectrum pricing. The point that I am making is that the Government have chosen to go down this route, but we need to look very carefully at the implementation of spectrum pricing. The questions that I have raised would be very much in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and until they are resolved, it would not be right to proceed with the legislation in the way proposed.
As I understand it, it was not my right hon. Friends' intention before the election to proceed with the Bill in this form at this time. They undertook an initial consultation, and there may well have been issues that would have arisen in response to consultation and on reflection after the election which would have led to different conclusions in relation to legislation. We have to explore legislation, and that is the purpose of this debate and the subsequent Standing Committee.
The President of the Board of Trade has somewhat underwhelmed industry, not least by her published document on competitiveness, which was a shallow and


insubstantial effort in comparison with the competitiveness White Papers and subsequent measures of her predecessors. The Minister of State, like his colleagues at the DTI, promises much but so far has delivered little. What they have done they largely owe to their predecessors, as in the Bill. No doubt they have been distracted by the troubles into which the Department has fallen, almost from day one. However, the time is fast approaching when business will say, "Where's the beef?"
Valuable as the Bill may be, Ministers will not be able to point to it for an answer. If they fail to flesh out the detail adequately, even some of the potential benefits of this measure, for the development of an important industry, which undeniably exist, may be lost.

Mr. Brian White: I shall talk about the importance of the Bill, converging technologies and some of the new entrants that will result from the Bill. There is widespread support for the measure, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has demonstrated that there is widespread support among Conservatives for the principles of spectrum management. I was surprised by the shadow Secretary of State's comments, but he would not recognise widespread support if it was in front of him.
Before I came to the House, I spent 20 years in information technology as an assistant analyst designing systems. The United Kingdom was able to achieve a lead in that technology despite legislation and not because of it. A great deal has been achieved because those involved have been able to get round regulations and not because of Government support. Too often, innovations and new technologies are introduced in this country that run foul of the way in which it is organised. The procedures of this place result in laws that prevent innovation and thereby prevent us from moving forward. It is incredible that we achieve so much despite the restrictions that are in place.
I am pleased that the Bill will increase flexibility. If some of the restrictions that have been advocated are put in place, new technologies that we shall see being introduced in the next century will not be able to use the radio spectrum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) talked about Germany and France and our lead over them, but they are not the only countries in Europe. The Nordic countries also have a lead. Finland, for example, has 98 per cent. usage of mobile phones. Surely we have something to learn from the innovations of Nordic countries, with public sector companies competing with other public sector companies as well as with private sector companies. The dynamic market that has been created has led to a 39 per cent. use of the Internet, for example. There are many lessons that we can learn so that the lead and leading-edge technologies that we have developed can remain in place.
The Nordic countries have learnt that outdated dogma, from wherever it comes, is a barrier to innovation. I am pleased that the Bill does not rely on that dogma.
There will be a convergence of technologies. We will not be talking about only radio, television or cable. I can already e-mail via my digital phone, and it will not be long before that and other technologies improve, providing access to many more people.
There will not merely be a convergence of technology but a mix-and-match approach. The individual will be able to use part wireless, part cable and part satellite technology all in one transaction. Apart from convergence, we should talk about the appropriateness of technology to enable someone in a rural area to use appropriate technology in the same way as those who live in inner-city conurbations. It is important that we build in flexibility so that licences allow for mix and match. We should not push people down a particular route. A problem of the past is that we have seen things in isolation and not as ways of communicating. Technology has been perceived as a way of sending a message by means of a certain medium and it is important that in future we see things in the round.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) talked about some of the technologies to which I intended to refer. I know, of course, that it is not compulsory in the Chamber not to repeat ourselves, but I shall be abstemious and not repeat some of my hon. Friend's remarks. There will be new technologies, and I am not talking about third generation mobile telephony, which is already here and being developed. There will be new technologies that go beyond that and we must not make short-sighted mistakes. Instead, we must consider allowing new entrants to use wireless in the century ahead. It will be a mistake to confine ourselves to what we already know about.
New technologies will be introduced, and the Bill must provide for new entrants. We must not erect barriers against technologies that we do not yet know about. Some of those who have contributed to the debate seemed to be suggesting that we should put in place barriers based on current technology instead of looking to the future.
I welcome clause 5 and the giving of grants for future research. It is important that we provide support for research in the early days. All too often, however, we have put money into research and stopped before that research can lead to products. It is important that money is made available for new companies that are setting up new technologies. In the early days when things are a struggle, when banks do not want to know and when sufficient capital is not available, the Government should provide support.
When I read about auctions back in June, I thought, "My God, here we go again. Have we learnt nothing from the television debacle and experience in the United States?" I have been reassured by comments made in the other place and by those of my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon.
It is important that our approach is selective and appropriate and not one that is used for anything and everything. Conservative Members seem not to recognise that it is appropriate in some circumstances to use auctions. At the same time, I think that it would be inappropriate to use them in every circumstance.
I am pleased that the Minister gave reassurance to existing companies based on the investment that they have already made. He has said that they will not be subject to auctions for existing services. It is an important message which needs repeating. We are talking not of a tax but of the management of the spectrum.
My experience of the Ministry of Defence is that it is not likely to give up the bands that it already has. A small dose of commercial reality would be especially appropriate for the MOD.
We need to be aware of what happens in terms of costs and benefits when new technologies are introduced. It has been said that costs will be passed on to the consumer. However, new technologies rapidly give value to the consumer, and prices fall quickly. The new technologies that will be introduced by means of the Bill will be no different.
There has been a good deal of consultation with industry, but I make the plea that practitioners are also involved. We should not confine ourselves to company directors. It is important that we talk to those who are developing technology and who are involved at the sharp end, who will maintain our leading edge.
Consultation must have appropriate time scales. Companies should know in advance what the issues are and what they must plan for. Consultation has too often taken place at an inappropriate time. It has either been too far in advance and nothing has happened or it has been far too quick and no one has had time to plan. We must ensure that we get the balance right.
I accept that there are some concerns that should be expressed in Committee, but I accept that the Bill is an important measure which will set us up for the next century, ensuring that we maintain the leading edge that has been developed over the past century.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I support the general principles that are set out in the Bill, which represent a useful step forward. They have been described fluently by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and by many others.
I welcome the generally high standard of debate. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced serious arguments. I should perhaps exempt the absent shadow Secretary of State, who made up for seriousness with a particularly entertaining speech. I enjoyed his description of the history of Conservative policy in the area covered by the Bill. Apparently, there was a shining light during the time when he was last responsible for these matters, followed by a dark tunnel leading all the way to the general election, including the drafting of the Conservative party manifesto. A new light has now returned and we can bask in it.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State, criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not being present throughout the debate. Having said that, he immediately disappeared.
I shall introduce a note of dissent in the consensus that appears to rule between the two Front Benches and the Liberal Democrats. I hesitate to do that, because new Members have been told that our maiden speeches should be non-controversial, and although this is my second speech, I have not yet got used to the idea of being controversial. There seems to be a broad consensus between all the parties that fee increases should be made only as far as is necessary for spectrum management. The Conservative party wants that principle to be established, but it does not trust us to keep to it. The Labour and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench teams want to stick to it.
That reminds me of the first experiments under the late President Leonid Brezhnev. He started to introduce market principles into the Soviet economy. He said,

"We're not actually going to introduce profit or make money. We're just trying to introduce small reforms that will help with bottlenecks in the market. Relax comrades, nothing will happen." He was right; nothing did happen.
There are two problems with that self-denying ordinance: it is undesirable in principle and illusory in practice. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have one of these machines in my hand, but it is switched off. I brought it in to show that I am not opposed in principle to mobile telephones. When I see people in the street speaking into mobile telephones, I do not react with horror like most people do. I am pleased that the British people are learning to do two things at once and increasing the gross national product.
Nevertheless, it would be idle to pretend that companies, such as Vodafone and Agent Orange or whatever it calls itself, are desperately short of money and are threatened by the smallest increase in the cost of wavelengths, especially as it may be 20 years before they pay it.
Given the priorities that the Labour Government have set in education, unemployment reduction and health, we should take more seriously the need to raise revenue from appropriate areas. Wavelengths are currently general public property, so if we are unable to raise revenue from that area, where should we do so?
The European directive seems to put up a barrier to that. It says:
Member States may set fees at a level higher than cost recovery only where this is justified to ensure the optimal use of scarce resources (such as radio spectrum).
All of us who have worked in business know that it does not happen like that. If there is a scarce resource, either the fees are set at the market level, or the attempt to raise fees to clear the market will not work. Each company will calculate the cost to it of entering this market. It will consider the fees that we set, and will take part in the auction, application or whatever procedure we require to the point where it makes sense in the market in marginal terms. When we say that we will use this measure only for the purpose of spectrum management when the European Union says that we should use it only for that purpose, we are either limiting ourselves to the extent that we will fail in spectrum management, or deluding ourselves and, in practice, we will have to put up prices to the market level to get an orderly market. Ministers should be willing to accept that and regard it as a natural part of Labour Government policy.
The waveband spectrum belongs to the British people, and they should get a fair price for it, which is what we would expect in any other commercial transaction not involving destitute groups. I reiterate that Vodafone and Orange are not destitute groups: they are happy to work in the market on this basis.
It could be argued that that creates an undesirable precedent, but there is already the precedent of the oil industry. When the oil industry started in the North sea, entrance costs were very low. Consequently, the early period of exploitation of North sea oil was characterised by extraordinarily high levels of profit. Successive Governments raised the level of revenue that they obtained from levies on North sea oil because they felt that it was reasonable for such a collective asset to produce a reasonable return for the British Government.
I believe that we should not be apologetic. We should accept that the Government would be right to charge what the wavebands are worth. I hope that in the years to come they will choose to do so.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I represent a rural and fishing constituency. The Bill commends itself to many people in my constituency, as it affects their life style and their safety. They will be staggered that the party that they formerly supported has turned its face against the provision in its manifesto to widen the management of radio spectrum. I am fairly firm on this point, because the effectiveness of the police force in North Yorkshire suffered as a consequence of the narrowing and so-called freeing up that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) instigated when he had his time at the Department of Trade and Industry. The Leader of the Opposition represents a constituency in North Yorkshire, so he knows what happened, even if the right hon. Member for Wokingham does not.
I have talked to policemen on the beat in the streets of Scarborough, Whitby and in the vast rural areas. Police constables often carry their own Vodafone mobile phones in their pockets, because as a consequence of the measures that were instigated by the previous Government, the radio system used by the North Yorkshire police force is outdated and ineffective, and about 40 per cent. of my constituency is a radio-free zone. That would probably commend itself to some of my colleagues on the Front Bench, particularly if it involved receiving radio signals through pagers or through radio telephones.
Like other hon. Members, I procured a digital telephone expecting to receive 95 per cent. coverage in my area, but when I am on my patch I have difficulty receiving appropriate communications. I am no different from the vast majority of people who live in those rural areas and work in those fishing communities. My constituents believe that this measure will afford them opportunities to get better access to communications.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham will explain later why he set his face so firmly against the previous Government's clear manifesto commitment. It was offered to my constituents as a fairly significant plank of their policy that affected people's life styles and safety.
I shall never forget the story told to me by a farmer in one of the dales, who had had an accident. He was in his tractor, on his own, and had he not been able to use a mobile telephone to gain access to the emergency services—which, incidentally, took more than 40 minutes to reach him—he probably would have lost his life. I believe that the Bill offers the possibility of innovation on the part of the industry, and thus offers life-saving measures to many of my constituents.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to a point that was made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about the fishing industry. Unlike some

earlier speakers who may have found reasons for hilarity in that industry, I firmly believe that it is important for us to review the licensing charges presented to fishermen. I can confirm that they tend to use mobile phones more often than radios to telephone their homes, for instance, and that they use their radios only in emergencies—in circumstances of life and death. I hope that we will give due consideration to that in Committee.
As for the rural community, I understand from the research that I undertook in preparation for my speech that the National Farmers Union was one of the organisations that were consulted about the Bill. I believe that the NFU speaks for the agricultural community in supporting the Bill—and that is why I think that it was right that the previous Government made a commitment to the rural communities in their manifesto, saying that they would ensure that communications would be opened up for them.
Often, the size of the market is the reason why rural communities do not have access to the telecommunications market in the more restricted areas in which they live. I certainly believe in the idea of community, and I know that my constituents do. I believe that measures that will allow small-scale radio operators to enter the market for the first time, and to afford rural communities life-and-death safety procedures, will be beneficial.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a civil engineer. I am a chartered civil engineer. Unlike some earlier speakers, I am not particularly expert in any electrical or even mechanical procedures, but I am a user: I have had to use the devices that we are discussing when doing my job out in the construction industry. I see tremendous advantages for the public utilities—the gas, electricity and water companies—and, indeed, for their customers. They will have access to services when there is an emergency, and that will have a direct result on life styles.
Let me emphasise a point that has come across in the debate. I believe that I was elected, rather than the last Conservative Member of Parliament for Scarborough, because I presented a programme that tried to solve problems rather than making larger problems. I believe that I was elected because I represented a party that spoke up for the whole British community, not just for sectional interests. I also believe that we now have a Government who try to represent all the British people, and all the people in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. The Bill was ready to be debated—thanks, ironically, to the work of the previous Government—but the fact that it has been presented says loud and clear to my constituents that the new Government are serious about benefiting their life styles.
Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that there is a possibility of our bringing real advantage and benefit to the whole British community, not just to sectional interests. I believe that the Bill firmly shows that the Labour party speaks for the whole of that community, not just for the narrow, sectional, urban and suburban interests that we heard represented earlier this evening.

Mr. Nigel Beard: The Bill exemplifies how fast technological change has been taking place, and the speed with which it has been absorbed into everyday use in society. Looking at the statistics involved in radiocommunication, anyone would think that, with 100 billion cycles per second to allocate, the radio spectrum could be treated almost like air, free to everyone. Of course, it is not: not all parts of the spectrum can be used for all purposes. When there are more than 30 billion cycles per second, the spectrum cannot be used much more than for transmissions from the couch for the television, and the majority of users—or, at least, significant users—use less than that.
Equally, the lower-range frequencies will spread all over Europe and, indeed, the world. They are also in need of regulation, because there will be interference. Then there is the fixed use of radio astronomy, which has already been mentioned. Radio astronomers cannot pick the spectrum in which a particular star will radiate, and we would not want the local taxi service to blot out the latest development in cosmology. Those are all good reasons why the frequencies should be well regulated.
The allocation of frequencies is therefore far more complicated than it appears at first sight. That was recognised in the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1904 and 1949, and in the provision of the Radiocommunications Agency to regulate such matters. Since then, however, there has been a huge increase in the number of radio devices. I am not thinking just of the communications devices of which we all know; as well as mobile telephones, there are devices connected with taxis and television. Radio communciations has had a huge impact on the public services, and the speed with which they can reach the sites of accidents and emergencies where police, ambulances or the fire brigade are called. Without regulation, some of the spectrum would be overcrowded and one user would interfere with another. Sometimes the effect would be trivial, but potentially it could be tragic.
The original concept of allocation reflected the relative freedom that appeared to be there in the spectrum. It was a standing charge for anyone who wanted a licence, and there was therefore no incentive to economise on the way in which the licence was operated, and the way in which bands could be used—pretty liberally. There was no reason why they should not have been given that apparent freedom. The huge increase in the use of devices needing radio frequencies, however, has changed all that, and the change is now widely recognised. It has been widely recognised in the almost unanimous approval of this measure in the consultation that took place; it was even recognised by the previous Government, who did not always recognise wisdom when it was in front of them; and users generally will support the measure and consider it necessary.
The Bill will not be an impediment to those who operate now. The clauses make it clear that most current users will experience reduced charges, and that to others the increase will be hardly noticeable. It has been quoted as 20p per taxi per week, and 15p per mobile phone per week. Hardly anyone will notice such an increase, and along with the changes will come greater security for people using such devices.
This is not a revenue-raising Bill, but an enabling measure. The intention is to promote rational and efficient use of radio spectrum. We can thereby expect a

burgeoning of the jobs that are associated with radio-based industries. It is estimated that 400,000 jobs are already associated with those industries and that that will expand by 1,000 a week.
There have been times when technological development has been frustrated because the law, social circumstances or administration frustrated it. They put too tight a rein around the development. The Bill is intended to avoid that. It is intended to give the tremendous drive for technological development in this sector an open space that is properly regulated and governed and in which boundaries are set and people can compete in a civilised way.
The Bill is worthy of support on all those counts and everyone who has considered it and the situation it represents appears to support it. However, it also exemplifies the way in which a democratic Government who are in tune with the times and determined to modernise can bring this country up to date and allow conditions for technological innovation to flourish.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, whether voluntarily or not. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for their contributions. I also welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and look forward to exploring with him some of the issues to which he has rightly drawn attention—in particular, the failure of clause 2 to recognise consumer interests adequately.
We have had a useful debate. The Bill has become clearer and clearer as the evening has worn on. Conservative Members accept the principle that the spectrum should be managed properly and in such a way as to encourage the development of new services. That is what we did successfully in government. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) did when he was a Minister in the Department. If there is a problem of crowding on the spectrum, it is a problem of success, which was created by the last Conservative Government.
We do not accept the Bill, partly because it is poorly drafted and partly because it gives the Secretary of State significant powers over one of our most successful industries. It taxes those industries arbitrarily and in an indiscriminate way, and it leaves unclear the whole question of the various taxing mechanisms—the so-called administrative pricing under clause 2 and the use of auctions under clause 3.
I have said that the industry is going to be treated unfairly and in an unworkable way. There is no better illustration of that than the Bill's complete failure to address the problem of international satellite operators, who will not pay United Kingdom spectrum charges, who do not pay UK company taxes and who are outside UK telecommunications regulations. The Minister will be hard pressed to explain why our operators should be taxed twice over—first, under normal fiscal policy and again under his regime—and also regulated, and then be told that they are to share that access with operators who are untaxed and entirely unregulated.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that the essential emergency services—not just gas, electricity and water, but national health service trusts, for


example—should be given access to the spectrum. We have received various assurances about the charging regime that might apply to them. The point is that that access must be guaranteed. Emergency services cannot be trifled with. They must have access to the amount of spectrum that they require. Warm words will not suffice and did not suffice in the other place. I give Ministers notice that in Committee we shall seek to place in the Bill guarantees in regard to access for our emergency services.
There are two principal pricing mechanisms in the Bill. The first, under clause 2, is ingeniously described as "administrative pricing". Conservative Members will savour that phrase constantly over the next few months. We call it taxation and it might have been to the Minister's or the parliamentary draftsman's credit if they had recognised taxation for what it is and been honest enough to spell it out as taxation. Clause 2 gives us serious problems, as their lordships in another place revealed.
In four specific areas, we are going to have to amend clause 2. First, the tests—the matters to which the Secretary of State must refer and shall now have regard: that amendment is useful—are deficient. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall has said, there is no reference to consumer interests. We shall want to put that right in Committee. I advise the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to improve on the defence offered by her noble Friend when resisting the amendment in Committee in another place. It is simply not good enough to say that writing consumer interests into the Bill will somehow duplicate the remit of the Office of Telecommunications. That will not wash. This is taxation and there should be some regard to the consumer interest.
There is no reference either to the need to promote stability of investment. That is important in this new market of growing businesses. We shall want to examine that, too, in Committee.
Our second concern with clause 2 is that the tests are not in any sense verifiable because the Secretary of State will be the sole arbiter. Unless companies go expensively to law, it will be the Secretary of State who decides exactly how much regard she pays to each of the matters listed in subsection (2). Conservative Members would like a better test—a more independent test—and a vehicle for that lies in the new advisory group that the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has proposed.
Conservative Members welcome the proposal to form a spectrum management advisory group, but it should not be merely at the service of the Minister. The industry will rightly require the Minister's management of the spectrum and his justification for the additional taxation to be capable of being put to the test by the spectrum management advisory group. I give him notice that we shall insist that the Secretary of State must at least pay attention to an annual report by that group commenting on the success of the management of the spectrum and seeking to ensure that users' interests are fully taken into account before the additional taxation is levied on them. We shall table amendments in Committee along those lines. I am sure that the advisory group will want to monitor and advise on the United Kingdom's position on negotiations in Europe and internationally on spectrum management.
As I said during an intervention on the Minister our third concern about clause 2 relates to the addition of the two qualifying words in subsection (1). They were added almost by sleight of hand in another place at the same time as the phrase "have regard" was made mandatory rather than discretionary. By adding those words, the Secretary of State is giving herself complete scope to have regard to any other matters that are not specified in the subsection. That is the point I was trying to get over to the Minister of State. Because of the peculiar linguistic construction of clause 2(1), the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe sums that are greater than she needs for purposes that she is not prepared to specify. That is wrong and her hand ought to be tied much more tightly in the legislation. We shall address that in Committee.
The most serious defect of clause 2 is the general ability to raise money for unspecified purposes. From a close look at the clause as a whole, it seems that additional money could be raised for any purpose whatever, quite outside the remit of telecommunications. Presumably money could be raised to suit the broad economic interest or the interests of the Treasury rather than those of the industry that the Department and its Ministers are supposed to look after. If that is not true, perhaps the Minister will explain how he has already been able to present to the House a carefully detailed compliance cost assessment—perhaps it is only for illustration—showing exactly how the first £75 million of revenue will be raised.
My hon. Friends may be interested to know that the Minister intends to raise £42 million more from personal communication networks—I declare an interest as a user of an Orange telephone—£26 million more from cellular telephone operators, £7 million more from fixed link users and so on. Perhaps in her winding-up speech the Under-Secretary of State will tell us whether that compliance cost assessment still stands—it was compiled some time ago—and whether she still intends these quite dramatic increases to be phased over only three years. Is that still the Government's thinking?
We shall certainly seek to ensure some kind of cap on the Secretary of State's taxation power. Even without the deficiencies in clause 2 we would have sought that. It is not right that under the Bill, which I understand is not a money Bill, the Secretary of State will be allowed to impose unlimited future increases on the industry simply by statutory instrument.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. Does he wish me to go all the way and conclude that because the DTI, which has always had a fairly tight budget, has been raided again and again by the Treasury, the Government are inventing some compensating form of income? Should I banish that thought? My hon. Friend is not asking me to believe that, is he?

Mr. Fallon: No, I am not. Perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry and the President of the Board of Trade are simply doing what they do best, which is to comply with any demand that is put upon them by the Treasury. Perhaps they have been told to raise a specific sum—who knows? The money raised by taxation from the new industries, which the Department ought to put back into them, will go who knows where. Perhaps it will be used to support the Mandelson dome at Greenwich. These are serious additional sums.
I shall now deal with clause 3 and the introduction of the principle of auctions or market pricing for new pieces of the spectrum. Some of the pitfalls of that approach have been well illustrated by hon. Members, and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, who has an international engagement this evening. However, I am sure that he will address those pitfalls in Committee.
Perhaps the Minister can finally give us some information. She has heard from her hon. Friends that auctions may not be best in all circumstances, or may not even be appropriate in most circumstances. Under what circumstances are auctions proposed and what is the timetable for raising the formidable sums that are described in the financial memorandum? Is there perhaps some hidden Treasury edict that £500 million or £1 billion must be raised by a particular year to bail out some emerging black hole in the Government's public expenditure plans?

Dr. Palmer: Does the Conservative party oppose all auctions? The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that Labour might not wish to use them in all circumstances. Are there circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman would favour their use?

Mr. Fallon: We are opposed to auctions as described in the Bill for these purposes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, we did not introduce the legislation. The Bill has been presented by the hon. Gentleman' s Government, and it is for them to defend the use of auctions and to tell the House—because these are serious sums of public money—exactly into which financial and budget years the sums raised will be allocated. Perhaps the Minister could sketch out her thinking about when the first auctions might take place and say whether any tranches of this £1.5 billion—a mouthwatering sum to the Treasury—have to be raised and handed over to the Treasury by the end of any particular year.
There is an area in which I can help the hon. Gentleman. We have always argued that as the industry has grown and more new companies have come into it, we should always consider the extent to which licences can be made more transferable and the whole process of assignment made easier. One of the purposes of our White Paper was precisely to encourage the Radiocommunications Agency to ensure an easier and swifter transfer of licences when, for example, one business was taken over by another or any part of a business was transferred to the ownership of another company. Perhaps the Minister could tell us, before we get to auctions, what the Radiocommunications Agency will be doing to ensure that the process of transferring licences will be made easier when businesses are bought and sold.
Finally, on the question of auctions, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether work is in hand in the Department, or perhaps being commissioned by the Radiocommunications Agency, to learn from some of the experiences of auctions to which a number of hon. Members have referred. There have been some bad experiences with auctions in this area and I wonder whether any research has been commissioned and whether the Government are now learning the lessons from experience elsewhere.
The Bill is not as it is described. It is not about the management of the spectrum. It is a rather old-fashioned Bill of the kind that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I learned to recognise some time ago. This is a Bill about taxation. It is a Bill about arbitrary taxation, not least in the way in which clause 3 is drafted. The Bill is about unfair taxation, in the way that that taxation, left in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, could operate. Saddest of all, it leaves the Department of Trade and Industry, once a great Department, simply as a bag carrier for the Treasury.
That may be a role that the President of the Board of Trade prefers—it is certainly the role that seems to come easiest to her—but it is not a role that best serves the revolution in communications businesses that we have seen. I can assure the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we shall do everything possible in Committee to improve the Bill and to ensure that it better serves the industries that it now proposes to tax.

Mr. Tony Colman: I understand that other hon. Members, certainly on the Government Benches, wish to discuss this important Bill further. One reason why I wish to speak is because of the importance of radio to the UK economy. It contributed some £13 billion to our gross domestic product in 1994, and more than 400,000 jobs. Those jobs have been growing at the rate of 1,000 a week and the contribution to the economy at the rate of £1 billion a year.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) made an interesting speech. I was not in the Chamber earlier, but I watched the debate with interest. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made an extraordinary contribution. It was one of the most extraordinary outbursts that I have heard in my short time in the House from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He made an extraordinary attack which had nothing to do with the Bill but, as another hon. Member said, everything to do with his own rather extraordinary state in the Commons. Perhaps we should draw a veil over that. However, I commend the hon. Member for Sevenoaks for his suggestions and his apparent general support for the Bill.
That support is shared by the Federation of Communication Services, the trade body that covers those organisations affected by the Bill. There is also support from the four major mobile phone companies—Orange, Vodafone, Cellnet and Mercury. They have had every opportunity to suggest changes to the Bill, but they have not done so and we have seen general support for the Bill.
What has been requested is more consultation. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister talk about the setting up of the spectrum management advisory group, adding to the consultation which is already included in clause 6. As my hon. Friend said, that clause refers to a range of consultations that will have to take place under the legislation, on top of which will be this important advisory group, giving impartial advice on strategy, allocations of the spectrum and policy. I welcome that as a way forward and a fulfilment of the new Government's pledge to listen to business and to all the interests affected by legislation.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who I understand is absent pursuing matters outside the House, made an interesting speech. In particular, he commended


the setting up of the spectrum management advisory group. He suggested that it was important that independent people should be appointed to that group. In winding up, I hope that the Minister will support that. It should not be made up simply of the crowd currently involved, but should comprise potential newcomers, those interested in this huge new industry that will be so important to Britain. In particular, the hon. Gentleman suggested that it should comprise the new entries, the people who at the moment are planning for their future.
If it does not make the hon. Gentleman blush on reading this in Hansard tomorrow, I congratulate him on his excellent contribution, which showed a more significant and analytical approach than that of the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
I also strongly support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham). In particular, I share her concerns for the taxi industry. She may feel that that industry has a tremendous dominance in north Ilford, but I can assure her that her concerns are shared certainly in Putney and, I think, in many other areas of London and in many other conurbations in Britain.
It is important that the way in which we go forward on the matter of the auction should not militate against smaller industries and businesses. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry replies, she will take account of the small taxi operator. I understand that already they can pay up to 30 times more than the major telecommunication operations, and that should not be so.
I also support other hon. Members' concerns for the fishing industry. A cousin of mine fishes for crab and lobster in the North sea. His boat is at Sheringham and his only means of communication is his mobile phone. I have previously told the House that I come from Norfolk and I am proud of it, and the fishermen of the North sea are important to the local communities. Like the taxi drivers, they should not be priced out of the market by this legislation. That is an extremely important part of the Bill.
The concessionary fees arrangement is important to our future. Services which at the moment receive concessionary fee arrangements, such as the ambulance services, are crucial to the delivery of health care. I have already mentioned the fishermen of the North sea and it is crucial that the lifeboat service, in its use of the wavelengths, is not priced out of the market. Again, I ask my hon. Friend to give assurances on that.
As a business man, I very much welcome the certainty provided by clause 4. It will provide enhanced security of tenure, which is desired by all business people in the telecommunications industry. I welcome also the reassurances given in this debate by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that there will be licence changes only on very rare occasions, such as when it is in the interests of national security or in compliance with Community obligations or international agreements to do so. There will be situations in which a person may wish to give up a licence, but the House should nevertheless applaud the enhanced security of tenure provided by clause 4.
I am extremely pleased that in clause 5 we are considering how grants might promote efficient spectrum management. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham

(Mr. Timms) mentioned the need to look after the Community Media Association, which is very concerned to ensure that future spectrum use does not exclude community radio and community spectrum use. I should very much like community groups in my own constituency to be able to approach the Secretary of State under clause 5 for grants to develop facilities.
Clause 6 deals with consultation, which I have already dealt with at length. I should like, however, to reiterate the need to take account of consumer interest—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and is a matter of concern for hon. Members on both sides of the House. Assurances were given in another place that consumer interests were covered by the Telecommunications Act 1984. However, I ask the Minister to reassure the House that pledges to consider consumers' interests will be copper-bottomed.
The Bill not only shows the way for the future but it anticipates it. The Bill will promote the efficient use and management of the spectrum. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that the Bill is all about money, but I do not believe that that is so. It is about fairness and about providing a way forward that will make sense to taxi drivers in Ilford and to fishermen in the North sea.
The Bill is also about ensuring that the big boys pay their proper part of the charges. As I said, it is very interesting that, during the debate on the Bill in another place, the big operators did not say that they do not support it. The Bill offers charge reductions of up to 50 per cent. for groups that require our support. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said about local radio. I am not sure whether the Minister realises it, but I have a local radio station in my constituency. Perhaps I should say that for four months it was a local station that operated four restricted service licences. Then came the point at which the operators had to apply for a licence. As soon as they reached that stage, in moved the big boys. The station will now be local only in name.
Unfortunately, the telecommunications industry is all about the big boys, because the little boys are swept aside. We must remember that the industry is all about big firms that have the money. What worries me and many other people in the United Kingdom is that we have reached a situation in which not monopolies, but oligarchies, prevail. Individual firms can come together and collude, which leads to fewer firms and creates more problems for us to contain. I am therefore pleased to speak in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, which examines the cost-based fees that distort the market, encouraging the hoarding that is so unfair to small businesses.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry is fully aware of the current situation because she has taken the opportunity to visit my constituency. I am very grateful for that visit, during which she made a tremendous impression on my local chamber of commerce. She is a warm person and all hon. Members know how committed she is to her job, in which she has done tremendously well. She has come to the fore and made such a good impression that, for the first time, members of my local chamber of commerce believe that they have a Government who are listening to them.
Let us ensure that the consultation is taken seriously. It will be no good listening and not acting. Ministers are now going back to the firms and companies that they have already consulted to say, "We listened to you the first time round; now will you explain what you meant, because we are not quite sure if we are doing what you want us to do. Do we have it right?"
I represent a town that was built on small firms, and we prided ourselves on our resolve that large companies would not move into our area. We believe that we must allow our little companies an opportunity to show their entrepreneurial skill and to develop. They have grown from small to medium companies. The Bill will help in the objective of allowing small companies that are disadvantaged because of a lack of economies of scale to prove themselves. Large firms currently enjoy economies of scale which mean that they can sweep aside the competition, allowing no development opportunities for small firms.
Last night, with several other hon. Members, I attended a meeting at which the Office of Telecommunications regulator spoke about the competition Bill and about the future of the telecommunications industry. He said that neither he nor anyone else in the industry knew where the industry was going. Although they had an idea of where they are headed, they cannot be sure because of the tremendous speed of development in the telecommunications industry. Although the Bill deals with what we think will be the future, we had better plan on revisiting the issue in another three to five years. Technological advances in the industry are so great that channels in the spectrum will soon be condensed.
We must be very careful not to fall into old traps. I hope that another hon. Member will help me out, because I cannot remember the name of a company that submitted a bid for a railway franchise to move freight. About a year to 18 months later—almost overnight—those who won the franchise sold their assets and became millionaires.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry will be very careful in future auctions to ensure, first, that companies do not overextend themselves. However, I do not believe that British firms are so stupid as to overextend themselves. I think that they will offer a realistic price and avoid the trap mentioned by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) told the House that British firms are so stupid that they will make bids that are so high that they will not be able to pay the licence fee or operate the franchise. I have no doubt that the business skills of those companies are quite acute. I have seen them operating, and they are very good. My great concern is that, if they are not careful, the Minister and his team may not see the collusion that can occur among bidders in the market and that British taxpayers may not get the best deal.
I can mention many people who have an interest in telecommunications matters—I have a list of some of them. As hon. Members will know, many people have cable in their homes., but companies are developing radio-controlled mobile telephones that can be switched from the car to the house. So, Mr. R. Longstaff of Shelton will hope that the Minister will look after his interests. Mr. D. Longwell will take an acute interest in the matter. Mr. A. P. Longworth, Mr. D. Lonsdale, Mr. F. G. Looker and Mr. G. Loomes will all be interested.

Mr. John M. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all know that there are necessary

conventions that make the House work. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) rose in good faith to wind up on behalf of the Opposition. Other hon. Members have since come into the Chamber, who have not been privy to the debate, and are now clearly filibustering, to the point of reading out lists of names from telephone directories. That may be entertaining, but it is not the way to run the House of Commons. The debate is running wrongly now and we look to your authority to ensure that it is properly wound up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for Opposition Members to dictate the course of the debate. The debate can go on until 10 o'clock and hon. Members will be allowed to make their contributions in the normal way.

Mr. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intended no disrespect to you, as you know. It is not for me to presume to advise how the debate should be run, but I am aware of the conventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks rose in good faith to wind up and we are now hearing contributions from people who did not even hear what he had to say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with that point of order already. Everything has been done as it should have been done, even if all the conventions have not perhaps been observed as they normally are.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), I can confirm that I was here until just after 7 o'clock, when I had to leave. I watched the debate on the monitor while I was telephoning some people whom I had promised to telephone and I returned as soon as I could. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman felt that I missed part of the debate—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obvious what the Government are doing. They are so embarrassed by what will be discussed in the Adjournment debate that they do not wish it to start early. That is an abuse of the Chamber and of the parliamentary process and it should be on the record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: The individuals I have mentioned have an interest in the Bill, because it involves their future. I am sure that the Government will safeguard their future. At the moment, they may not feel that they are part and parcel of the industry, but they are. The industry is coming their way fast.
Today we have certain technology and techniques, but in the future we will need to be quicker and more flexible to ensure that the appropriate instruments are put in place. I want a Government who are prepared to listen and act fast. If we do not act fast, we will lose our position. Britain is now the number one country in Europe for technology. Americans say that our technology is moving so fast that they come here to see how we operate and to take ideas back to America. We do not want to lose that position. We want to ensure that our industry is given the flexibility and the right to expand and develop.
I do not want a small oligopoly to determine the pace at which the industry moves. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will watch carefully the allocation of licences and the use of the spectrum. He has said that spectrum pricing is driven by the spectrum management and is not revenue raising. The allocation will raise money, but that will be for the management of the spectrum. We must ensure that our universities, which are at the cutting edge of technology, are given the necessary funding to carry out the research and development that will allow us to maintain our position as the forerunner in the use of the spectrum.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, small firms, especially local radio stations, should be given grants. We can raise prices to ensure that some of the spectrum is handed over by the Ministry of Defence, but we must be aware—as I am sure all Labour Members are—that that will create a marketplace. We will create an asset that can be sold, but we must be sure that we can control the process. If company A makes a legitimate bid for air slots, how can we ensure that it does not turn around and sell those slots to company B in the future? Company B could buy up sections of the spectrum and we would end up with a monopoly. What safeguards will the Minister put in place to ensure that that does not happen in Britain today? We know that the dead hand of monopoly has stifled British industry time and again. That is why we believe that the cutting edge of competition is vital to our industry and we must ensure that small firms are not squeezed out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should face, the Chair and address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: I will address the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It causes me some concern that licences are allocated annually. We know that we face a difficult situation, because people will not make large investments unless they have some security of tenure. However, security of tenure should not turn into a licence to print money. We should be able to take action against firms that do not safeguard the interests of the British people and foreclose them. We should ensure that we are able to compensate firms, if necessary, and put their share back on to the marketplace to ensure competition. The auctions should be run properly and the licences allocated to the right people. We must ensure at the same time that the Government are in control and can ensure that competition remains alive and the industry thrives.
I am glad to see that no new tax has been put on the mobile phone. What has not been mentioned is the cost of mobile phones today. Competition is supposed to drive prices down, but it sometimes seems that the mobile phone companies have a comfortable gentlemen's agreement between them. We do not always ensure that the companies use the airways to the best advantage.
When I travel round my constituency, I see not one mobile phone mast but two, three or four, and I am sure that other hon. Members do too. Will the Minister consider creating a national grid for those masts? The duplication must be terribly costly and that cost must be

borne by the consumer, you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—well, it would be if I used my mobile phone, but I leave it switched off in my bag so that no one can get to me. As the Government, we must not be prepared to leave everything to the market.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that schools and other organisations are bribed to put masts, those monstrosities, on top of their buildings? Does he know of any similar examples in his constituency? I could relate some stories.

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the amazing things that caught us out totally was the fact that when an application to erect a mast is made, the local authority has just 28 days to raise objections. If it does not, it is deemed to have agreed to the application. One mast was erected alongside a person's house. He sued the local authority for negligence because it failed to put in an objection.
The system has caused chaos. We have had to plead to move masts. The companies act in such a manner that we get the impression that they have a God-given right to stick a mast wherever they want. They are all over the place.

Dr. Gibson: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether there are any health hazards associated with those masts? Such hazards have been documented in Australia and elsewhere and masts are banned in certain states of America.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not purport to be an expert on the use of high-frequency radio waves, but everyone is now aware of the medical advice not to carry the mobile in the top left-hand pocket because it discolours certain parts of the body. We are also told that if we keep it to the ear for too long, the radio waves start cooking the brain. I do not know whether that is true, but I have certainly seen many people walking around with them held to their ears—some people in the House have obviously held them there for too long.
With any new technology we have problems. The masts can be quite low, so high-frequency radio waves can bombard certain people. I would not wish, however, to start a scare about houses near such masts, not least because people whose houses are under electricity power cables cannot sell them because others do not want to live there. I would not wish to suggest that there is any physical risk to health from the radio masts—I will leave that to be drawn from evidence supplied at a later date. The phones worry me, however, which is why I carry mine in a bag and not in my pocket.
If no new tax is to be imposed on mobile phones, who will suffer under the Bill? It is estimated that more than 80 per cent. of users will pay no more in charges. In fact, some will pay less than they do now. Some small firms will pay less, so they will be at an advantage. Large firms, which enjoy tremendous advantages from economies of scale, pay so much less per unit cost that they, too, have a tremendous built-in advantage.
It would be good if we could help the small firms. I can assure the Minister that every taxi driver in my town will thank me if the bill for his radio is cut. When taxi drivers start thanking us, they tell the public. If they tell the public, they are telling my voters. The more they tell


them what a good bloke I am, the more I like it. Truth will out, as they say, but I need that support. If, however, we get it wrong and they start saying what a rotten lot we are, I will be back in here to say to the Minister, "Look, you'd better get this right, I have got problems because my taxi drivers out there are against me."
There have been great developments in radio use and we will witness a tremendous extension of that technology. I want to ensure that the House is kept fully aware of all those developments. I know that that can be done via the Select Committee procedure, but hon. Members like me are getting a little bit old in the tooth now. In some instances we have let technology pass us by. To be honest, we need more information if we are to legislate for this specific market.
I now have a machine that I can plug into my laptop which, at the press of a button, transmits radio waves. Via my laptop and printer I can obtain a wiring diagram for a piece of equipment. Just 10 years ago that was impossible; in my father's time that would have been thought science fiction. The pace we are moving at is so fast that, as I have said for years, soon we will be able to walk about with a small device, point it upwards and pick up a transmission from a satellite or a mainframe computer. We will be able to give instructions to our boxes and get answers back to any question.
Even the House of Commons Library has a tremendous amount of information on disk and the retrieval rate is rapid. The information age is here. The one thing I know about business and life is that information is power. As a country, we are at the leading edge: so much power at our fingertips will put us at a great advantage. That is why the Government, to whom I am fully committed, will put a computer in every school—a modern, up-to-date computer linked to the internet so that our children can see today what tomorrow will be like. When many of us were at school, computers did not exist—in fact, some probably used the old slate and chalk, so we can see how fast things have changed during our lifetime. We should be fully aware of the importance of this Bill.
It says somewhere in the documentation that, after three years, the higher fees for taxi drivers may mean paying less than 20p extra per week. Most taxi drivers will wear that—they will not have a problem with it. The Government say that there are no current plans to apply administrative pricing to other services without consultation. We all know that if we ask people outside whether they want a price increase, not many will raise their hand. Just as no one votes for a tax increase, no one votes for a price increase.
We have to ensure, therefore, that we get value for money. The firms have been consulted and they can see the possible advantage; once we give them that advantage, they must not be able to rip us off. The valuable asset we have given them must be monitored closely. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that that point has been taken on board, but the framework may not be fully in place. Either the regulator's role in pricing and monitoring must be expanded or—as I would prefer—the House, through its Committees, should be able to monitor the situation. We should be able to question those responsible regularly so as to monitor our rate of progress as a country. That rate of progress is our future.
The industry is currently very competitive and can continue to be so. A regulatory framework is instrumental to the growth of the telecommunications industry.
The third generation of mobile systems will deliver a wide range of innovative multimedia services and we will have a significant opportunity to build on the success of the second generation. The United Kingdom must continue to be at the forefront of that development and I want an assurance that, as a Government, we will do everything in our power to afford our industry every technical support.

Mr. White: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is not only about the next generation of mobile phones, but about encouraging people to invest now to create new technologies for the new century and about providing a regulatory framework that allows entrants into the market?

Mr. Jenkins: I could not agree more and I was leading up to that very point—it is not about what we have, but about the future. If we are to develop centres of excellence, who is to fund them and who will fund research and development? If it is left to individual firms, can they afford to do it? Or is the Minister prepared to feed money, through the fee system, to the cutting edge so that we remain at the forefront of technology?
The fees charged on public broadcasters' transmissions will reflect public service obligations. I realise that television licences are not covered by the Bill, but our public service television is rated as being among the best, if not the best, in the world. I want guarantees that everything will be done to ensure that the public service providers are not starved of resources or priced out of the market, but are given resources to ensure that we remain at the forefront.
The Bill opens up the possibility of offering incentives to broadcasters to switch to digital. It has already been pointed out that the people most likely to switch to digital are those who already have cable or satellite. I do not have enough time to watch television at home; I seem to spend my time either here or out in my constituency. It is therefore not worth my while to buy a digital set. Indeed, my sets are so old that they switched from 425 to 625 not so long ago. I can only hope that I will still be able to receive signals for my sets in 10 years' time.
Be that as it may, the digital revolution to come is so great and so magical that it is essential to keep our eye on the situation and to ensure that progress is made. It will become possible to broadcast to very small numbers of viewers in the form of highly localised or specialised transmissions. In 10 years' time, the British Medical Association will be able to transmit at a given time to every doctor in the country. Material will be flashed to them, perhaps overnight, and recorded ready for viewing the next morning. Such will be the sophistication of these systems that they will be able to target very small numbers of subscribers.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the welcome technological advances that he is painting so colourfully are fine in their place, but that there is also much that the public service broadcasters can do to harness the new technology in the areas we inhabit? I refer to the no-man's land between the west midlands and the east midlands, which experiences real problems receiving television signals carrying the stories that people want to know about their localities. We seem to get information about the west


midlands—Walsall, Birmingham and so on—yet Leicestershire and the counties to the east, for which the broadcasting media are based in Nottingham, cannot for topological reasons receive adequate broadcasting of a high quality—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

Mr. Jenkins: I can understand my hon. Friend's going on for so long; he feels passionately about the services in his area. I too feel passionate about the fact that I receive television signals from Nottingham and the west midlands even though I do not live there. Unfortunately, the cameras are not sent far outside Nottingham and the west midlands—they cover local stories, but not stories for my area.
The coming revolution presents the opportunity of much more localised services—and better services. The price of cameras and recording equipment has tumbled in the past decade. One reporter can now do the work that used to be performed by a crew of five. When I was elected to the House, a photographer took some pictures of me, put them into his computer, pressed a few keys, plugged in his modem, and the picture ended up on the editor's desk two minutes after it had been taken. We all remember how it used to be done: we took the pictures down to the chemist to have them developed and they were sent back to us through the post. Imagine how rapidly news can change if it can be recorded so quickly. Even the London Evening Standard, which comes out three or four times a day, would be slow compared with that technology. That is what I am saying.
The speed of technological change is such that we must be sure that we can cope with it. I am not sure whether, in essence, the Bill copes with it. The Minister must do more work in Committee to ensure that he has the power to cope with it, because tremendous changes are in the pipeline.
We cannot allow someone to take a licence and then say that it will be their property for ever and a day. There must he some public accountability. There must be some service to our country. I shall look for that in the final detail.
The process of legislating on this subject will not end this year; it will carry on a bit longer. Every year, as technology changes, we shall find ourselves chasing the industry. I, as a member of the party in government, want not to chase the industry but to lead it. The Bill is a first-class attempt at putting the Government in the position of leading the industry—hand in glove with industry, not dominating it but consulting it, always looking after its interests because, in the long term, the interests of that industry are the same as those of our people. That is why we have a Government today who look after all our people, because our future, the Government's future and the industry's future are tied together.
I shall support the Bill; I am proud to do so.

Mr. Tony Clarke: I give my assurances to Conservative Members that I have no intention of using up parliamentary time. As a new

Member, I am not familiar with the filibustering and the various other procedures that it is suggested that hon. Members may wish to use to intervene and prolong the business of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) has already said many of the things that many of us would want to say, so you can be assured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my comments will be brief and to the point.
I came into the Chamber not necessarily wanting to speak but I was goaded into speaking by Conservative Members' over-concentration on the Bill's financial aspects—the revenue-raising powers. They concentrated on them so much that they increased the revenue each time that they spoke, and made ridiculous suggestions as to how such revenue would be spent, including ludicrous suggestions about money and revenue being focused on the millennium dome.
The only connection that I envisage between the millennium dome and the Bill is that when the dome is opened and thousands upon thousands of visitors turn up with their mobile phones, unless there is management of the spectrum—unless the Bill is allowed to succeed—the chaos that would ensue at Greenwich would probably bring even Greenwich mean time to a standstill because of our inability as a Government and as a nation to cope with the technology that confronts us and stands before us.
My main reason for speaking is to suggest to Conservative Members that this is more than a revenue-raising Bill. It is about the management of the spectrum. It is designed to ensure that revenue is available for research, and for expenditure that may be needed in relation to that growing technology and in relation to the various related works that need to be undertaken in the years ahead. Clause 5 will make it possible for the Government to provide financial support for the training of radio engineers in efficient spectrum management techniques—something that cannot and should not be afforded from present funds.

Mr. Lansley: Does not the hon. Gentleman seem to be implying that the revenue raised by administrative pricing, or taxation as it is rightly described, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, will be spent on the purposes outlined in clause 5? Yet the Minister has said precisely the opposite. He said—I believe that I have it accurately—that there is no question of hypothecation, so the revenue goes to the Exchequer. It is general taxation and can be spent on everything and anything. My hon. Friend is right when he refers to things as widespread as the millennium dome.

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that there is no exclusive reason why the hon. Gentleman should suppose that all of the moneys raised will automatically go back into those aspects that I mentioned, but clause 5 clearly says that
The Secretary of State may
wish to
make grants
to ease and aid funding for training. If the Government are to do that, it would be sensible to ensure that revenue is available. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that that revenue should come from other sources and therefore that money should be taken away from other services, he should say so. If not, he must accept that clause 5 provides that, should grants be made available, that money could come from the revenue-raising powers.


My main reason for speaking was to say that, if money is to be made available, I hope that it goes into research to ease the public's concern about a wide range of issues related to the new technology. I had a strange week of visits in my constituency of Northampton, South. One day I visited a school that was fighting hard to stop a radio mast being erected in its playground. The local parents had mixed feelings about the benefits to the school in terms of the revenue that would be raised through rent from the radio company, but they also had concerns that were probably not fully warranted about how the mast could affect the health of their children playing in close proximity to it. On the Friday, I visited a school that was happy to have a mast on its site. Indeed, it was so happy that it was looking forward to having a second mast to raise more revenue so that it could take advantage of the new technologies that are upon us.
There was thus a certain confusion: should we or should we not; and what are the benefits and deficits of such technology? A huge job needs to be done to explain to the general public the benefits of the increase in radio and spectrum traffic. We need definitive research studies on the subject.

Mr. John Hayes: Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on what he thinks are the benefits of digital convergence in relation to education? He says that they should be explained to other people. Will he give us some clues?

Mr. Clarke: There are many benefits, but those expressed to me on my visits were, unfortunately, all financial. Due to the under-funding of education by the previous Government, schools need to raise revenue quickly to sustain their budgets.
Research needs to be carried out and the public should be informed about any possible health risks. If the studies show that there is none, the public should be told that they are safe. All that work must be funded, as must the training of radio engineers. I would feel uncomfortable if such a Bill suggested that all the work would be funded only from the existing budgetary provisions and if we did not provide for further funding.
I hope that, in replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will concentrate on issues other than simply the revenue-raising powers, which seem to be so important to Opposition Members. I hope that she will concentrate on issues which, I hope, will enable the Government to ensure that we face the increase in traffic and in the use of technology such as mobile phones in a way that is managed and acceptable to the nation.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: This is my maiden speech. I did not intend to make my maiden speech on this issue because I know as much about wireless telegraphy as the seat that I have been sitting on for the past three and a half hours. I rise because I have been enlivened by tonight's debate. I have learnt a tremendous amount and thought that I may be able to add a little to the debate.
My constituency of St. Albans is 20 miles north of London, according to my calculation. The Fees Office has a different perspective on it and says that it is 18 miles

from London. We are arguing over the last two miles and I am sure that, in due course, we shall reach a compromise—probably 19 miles.
St. Albans is rich in history. Archbishops of Canterbury—try saying that when you have had a couple of sherbets—are trained there. We are also unique in the world, in that we have had an Archbishop of Canterbury, we are training another one and we have provided the only English pope, Adrian IV.
The war of the roses, and the peasants' revolt led by Watt Tyler, took place in and around St. Albans. People were beheaded for standing up for the rights of working people. We also had the first English martyr, St. Alban, which is how our city got its name.
James Corbett has just written a book that chronicles the history. His brother is my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I promised that I would mention James tonight. I was at the launch of his book last Saturday, when James, Robin and I signed books and he gave them out. He said that if I gave him a plug tonight, he would give me a free copy of the book for my Christmas present.
Previously, I worked as a director of a housing association that specialised in housing people with mental health problems. This is where wireless telegraphy comes in. In that profession, we relied heavily on communications, especially mobile phones. If one goes out visiting someone with a mental health problem, it is vital to be in contact with one's base, to be safe and secure, and it is vital to be able to communicate quickly with the emergency services—fire, police, ambulance and, most importantly, the crash mental health team, which often had to come out and look after our clients when they got into deep trouble.
I understand that I am obliged by protocol to praise my predecessor, who is a Member of the House still, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). It was unkindly alleged that he had done a chicken run and moved from the seat that I now represent to another seat. I would not suggest that for one second. There is no doubt that if he had stayed, I would have beaten him, but that is by the bye. He moved to another seat.
I must say, to the right hon. Gentleman's credit, that on the two or three occasions that I went to see him at his surgeries, he was always courteous. He always sent me a Christmas card. I have 12 Christmas cards from Peter Lilley. They are not still on the mantelpiece, but I saved them because they are precious to me. He was kind, courteous and always gave a reasoned response if one wrote to him, whatever the issue was.
I am receiving a lot of letters about an issue in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, concerning a motorway service station that is due to be built in Redbourn. I take great delight in telling people that it is not in my constituency and passing them on to the right hon. Gentleman. I have sent him 70 already, and as more come in, I will keep sending them to him.
I have a rather unusual first name—Kerry. It is an Irish name. I am very proud of it now, although when I was a lot younger, I had a little difficulty with it because, until I was about 12 years old, I regularly had to drop my trousers to show that I was a male. I was born a male, I am a male now, and I am going to stay a male until I die, unless of course the party decides that quotas mean that we might need to—but if we do, I might do the other thing.
According to an Irish translation that I have, the name Kerry means firm of purpose, generous and kind of spirit. I could not possibly say that I was all those things, but others might.
To return to the Bill, I am pleased to support it. Our Government are making steady progress in a way that is right for the country and right for the industry. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.

Mr. John Healey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) on an excellent and perhaps impromptu maiden speech. It is clear from his performance tonight that he will serve his St. Albans constituents with great distinction in the coming years. I congratulate him on the result in that constituency on 1 May. I am especially glad that he will be able to close his collection of Christmas cards from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), and I wish him well in his negotiations with the Fees Office.
I hesitate to rise so soon after such a tour de force from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), who gave us a tremendously wide-ranging and detailed analysis of the challenges confronting the radio communications industry, and a persuasive argument for the Bill. He also gave us an eclectic examination of the potential impact of the Bill.
My hon. Friend may claim to be long in the tooth and from the old school, but in the case that he put for the Bill this afternoon and this evening—I think that it was this afternoon and this evening—he was advocating in the strongest terms a measure that will serve the new generation, not just the old.
I, too, welcome the Bill. As we move into the next century, we simply cannot run our radiocommunications system with legislation that was passed in the first half of this century. The radio spectrum is a national asset and a communications resource whose time is still to come.
The Bill may appear obscure to some. On Second Reading on 5 June 1997 at column 714, in another place, the Minister described it as an "arid, arcane, technical" matter concerning management of the radio spectrum. People may wonder why radio occupies a prime place in the first legislative programme and the first Queen's Speech of the first Labour Government for almost 20 years. For most of us, radio is background noise while we are having a bath, a shower, or breakfast. To many, it may be a source of argument with the children as to whether to listen to Radio 1 or Radio 4, Radio 3 or Hallam FM. In my family, we often compromise on BBC Radio Sheffield.
This Bill occupies a prime place in the first Queen's Speech and the first legislative programme of the first Labour Government for nearly 20 years because radio is a key component of our communications infrastructure. It is a key factor in our communications future. As the importance of mobile communications increases, so does the importance of radio.
With the blurring of boundaries between telephony and computing, radio and the case for legislation such as this become even more important. In the end, radio is the only

medium capable of delivering real mobility. The radio spectrum will be the master route to the information super-highway and the information revolution. A modern economy depends on effective access to, and management of, its radio spectrum.
Research conducted by the Radiocommunications Agency states that 400,000 jobs in the United Kingdom currently depend directly on radio. That number is predicted to grow by 1,000 per week. Not enough of those jobs are to be found in the constituency that I represent in Rotherham and the Dearne: we could do with some new technology, modern industry and economic growth. The Radiocommunications Agency research also establishes that the industry contributes £13 billion per year to gross domestic product, and grows at a rate of £1 billion per year. The industry and the Bill are critical to the future of this country.
The radio spectrum is a finite resource facing growing demands. Government have a responsibility to act to ensure that the resource is managed properly. That is what the Bill sets out to do, and that is why it is so important and long overdue. The legislation is designed to dispel the spectre of spectrum shortages and to eliminate the crisis of spectrum congestion. It is designed to put the industry, which, if we are honest, has outgrown its legislation, on a modern footing.
That is why I welcome clause 1, which will allow us to move from an antiquated system of administrative charging based on the bureaucratic costs of raising the licences to one that will allow us to tailor charges to the pressures of spectrum management; to move to a system in which we can fit charges to spectrum demand, a system where we can use charges to deal with spectrum congestion.
Clause 2 concerns matters that the Secretary of State should take into account when she sets the fees within the new system. I shall return to clause 2 later.
I shall make a couple of points about the charging system. I welcome the commitment that fees will be no higher than necessary, for reasons of spectrum management. I welcome the fact that the best estimates available suggest that the extra charge will be no more than 20p per taxi per week, or 15p per mobile phone per week, or 1p per exchange line per week. The majority of people using the radio spectrum will, of course, pay less under the new regime. The new system will price business into the radio spectrum, not out of it.
The Bill will also provide security of tenure for users of the spectrum. Security of tenure is not legally, fully and properly founded at present. It is a welcome and refreshing change to see a Secretary of State willingly give up powers that she already has under existing legislation in order that those using the services within the system may be more secure. It is one of the most encouraging and strongest signs that we do indeed have a change of Government. We have a new Government and a new approach.
Clause 3 introduces the concept of auction. This part of the Bill could bring greater flexibility and greater financial returns to Government management of the radio spectrum. Auctions have important potential advantages, but, as the Government have made amply clear, they are not appropriate in all cases. They should not, as some fear and have argued, increase operators' costs excessively, because bidders will bid only what they think the value of the franchise to be.
There has been much argument today over the sums that this measure may raise, with some wild calculations from Opposition Members. This is an important potential source of revenue. We should not turn up our noses at it. That said, I welcome the assurances by Ministers that auctions will not be used for existing licensees to continue to provide existing services; that they will not be used for broadcasters who have already gone through an auction or competitive bidding process under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to provide the broadcasting services for which they are responsible. Auctions will not be used for small and medium businesses, such as the excellent Al taxi firm, which operates right across my constituency in Rotherham and the Dearne.
We will, however—this is the part of the Bill with real potential—be able to apply the auction process to new national and regional services. I hope that we are looking at and talking about actively considering third generation mobile telephony. There are the prospects of the universal mobile telecommunications service—UMTS. That is where the mobile telephone needs computer technology. That is where use is made of both terrestrial and satellite links. That is where the future of our communications industry lies. That is where also we have an obvious candidate for auction.
I recognise that the Government have given no commitments on that score so far. They are consulting on the possibility of applying auction to the development and I encourage Ministers in that process.
We should be aiming for a framework for radio spectrum use, as well as one for management, that is foresighted and flexible enough for future developments well into the next century. Through the Bill we aim for better commercial use of a national asset. We should aim also for provision for better cultural and social use of a national asset.
I return briefly to clause 2, which sets out the matters that the Secretary of State may have regard to in setting fees. These matters include availability, demand, promoting efficient use, economic benefits, innovation and competition. In addition to the list of matters that the Secretary of State may take into account, however, we should have social and cultural use.

Mr. Fallon: Inadvertently, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that the Secretary of State must have regard to the matters that are listed in clause 2. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to volunteer to serve in Committee, which may be something that is volunteered on his behalf, and to move an amendment to include social and cultural use? How will he define the social and cultural matters to which he refers?

Mr. Healey: My reading of the Bill is rather different from that of Conservative Members. I read clause 2 as providing an enabling power for the Secretary of State to take the matters listed into account without placing an obligation on her to do so.
I am talking about voluntary sector organisations, which will be faced with difficulties. I have in mind organisations whose very mission in life is social inclusion and cultural diversity, which could be priced out of the market if they have to pay market rates. I urge the Government to consider that as they examine the Bill during its progress through the House.

Mr. Hayes: Clause 2 specifically states that
the Secretary of State shall have regard",
not may have regard or have an opportunity to regard. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the clause more carefully.

Mr. Healey: If that be the case, I would add social and cultural diversity to the list of matters that the Secretary of State takes into account. I consider that my case has been made all the stronger.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: No, I must press on.
Without the powers that are provided by the Bill we risk restricting the growth of some of the most important sectors of our economy. Without such powers, we risk depriving people throughout the country of some of the potential benefit of a new generation of communications technology.

Ms Joan Walley: I shall be brief. I wish merely to draw to the attention of Ministers and of the House generally my concerns about the implications of the Bill for the environment.
Excellent contributions to the debate have shown just how much United Kingdom industry can benefit from the Bill and how important it is that we keep abreast of new technology. The Minister of State has an onerous brief and a huge work load at the Department of Trade and Industry, and I have enormous respect for him. We need to keep abreast of new technology, and we will have opportunities for better management of the spectrum, but my plea to him is that we should also consider environmental concerns as the Bill goes through its various parliamentary stages. I understand that the DTI, like all other Government Departments, puts the environment at the heart of its proposals.
Will the Under-Secretary explain how planning legislation and planning controls will be strengthened in respect of any additional telecommunications masts that may be required? It is a matter of great concern to me that current planning legislation does not enable local communities to be properly consulted about where any additional telecommunications masts may be sited. Further advances in new technology, such as satellite communications, have enormous environmental implications. If we are to grasp the precautionary principle, the DTI should at least have regard to these most important environmental considerations.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a small contribution to this important debate.

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We have had a wide-ranging and generally constructive debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for having taken part in this important debate.
I am sad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has not seen fit to be present for the conclusion of the debate, given that he opened for the Opposition. I wondered where he was, because I know


what it is like being in opposition. He recently explained to the Conservative party conference how Oppositions spend their time. He talked about ringing the office of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). He said:
I rang his office the other day. Well, there's not much else to do in opposition, is there? I thought it was a wet Tuesday, so I'll ring Nigel Griffiths's office and ask what he's up to.
As we speak, the right hon. Gentleman is probably using his phone, or his mobile phone, to ring my hon. Friend. It is a great pity that he cannot be with us now, but I am sure that he is with us in spirit.
I was also fascinated by the contribution of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). His speech was constructive in parts. He quite properly raised one or two issues. He made great play of the term "administrative pricing", as if it was an invention of the new Government. He had some time out of the House during the previous Parliament, so it may have escaped his attention, but I remind him that this term was used in the Conservative Government's 1996 White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman referred to auctions, and asked, "Isn't this a tremendously new thing? Why is it being introduced?" The document published by the previous Government in June 1996 called "Spectrum Management: into the 21st Century" says:
Auctions are, in principle, the Government's preferred method of spectrum pricing.
It would be good to have consistency from the hon. Gentleman and from the Conservative party.
Conservative Members also make great play of the implications for industry, and argue that this measure is terrible for industry. I remind them of what industry has said during the consultation process. Ionica says:
Ionica welcomes the Government's proposals for the introduction of spectrum pricing, outlined both in this Consultative Document and in the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.
Cable and Wireless says:
Cable and Wireless Communications supports the use of administrative pricing as a means of achieving a fairer and more rational basis for pricing spectrum that takes into account the value of the resource that is used and provides incentive for spectrum efficiency.
We have also had comments from the Federation of Communication Services. Vodafone says that there is no new tax on mobile phones. What more reassurance does the hon. Gentleman want? I suggest to him that he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham would be better occupied not in telephoning the office of my hon. Friend—delighted though I am sure he is to have conversations with them—but in going out and talking to industry, because it is industry that will put them right.

Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Roche: Of course: I shall be only too delighted.

Mr. Fallon: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, and I thank her for all her kind references to me. I hope that she was not attempting to mislead the House by

suggesting that the Federation of Communication Services whole-heartedly welcomed the Bill. The federation's document states:
Neither the full impact of the legislation nor how the Government intends to use its new powers are clearly understood. There are many small and medium sized companies … who fear that their future access to spectrum may only be by an auction process. They believe this will jeopardise their businesses.
One would be hard stretched to describe that as a welcome for the Bill.

Mrs. Roche: I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman, but let me also remind him that the federation said:
The concept of a spectrum pricing tool, available to support the implementation of a well-defined spectrum management strategy, is most welcome.
We welcome the federation's comments, and its contribution to the debate.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Bill is all about ensuring the supply of the raw material on which one of the most successful and dynamic sectors of the economy relies. In today's debate, we have heard about the truly remarkable contribution that the radio industry makes to economic success, competitiveness and jobs; we have heard about the rapid and accelerating rate of progress in the century since radio began to be exploited. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) made that point very strongly.
We have also discussed one of the latest examples—the next generation of mobile communications systems, known as "third generation", or the universal mobile telecommunications service. First generation analogue and second generation digital mobile telephone technology have brought the benefits of mobile communications to millions of business and domestic users.
The third generation now offers the exciting prospect of full interactive multimedia capabilities with high-speed mobile access to a wide range of entertainment and information services. They will include full mobile office services, home shopping, real-time video and the wealth of material on the internet, leading us, in part, to the information age and the information society that we all want to embrace. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—who is a great expert, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms)—portrayed that new age very well.
The United Kingdom has been in the vanguard of the mobile communications revolution. We are now maintaining our position at the cutting edge of the communications revolution by becoming the first country in Europe to start the process of consulting on third generation licensing. It was a proud moment when, on behalf of the Government, I was able to begin that process.
Our aim is to provide licensing certainty for 1998–99. We are currently considering the responses to our consultative document "Multimedia Communications on the Move", which was issued on 31 July and sought comments by 17 October. I am delighted to tell the House that a number of useful comments have been received, which we will take fully into account in developing the next stages of the process. The Department will continue to consult the industry on the details as they are developed.
We note what was said about consultation. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks and others drew attention to the need for consultation for all in the industry. Clearly, Government and industry need to be in partnership to ensure that the United Kingdom's competitive edge is fully realised. Meanwhile, I am keen to promote debate. The responses—except where confidentiality was requested—will shortly be placed on the Radiocommunications Agency's internet site. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who raised questions about secrecy. The Radiocommunications Agency prides itself on being as open as possible, and we will seek to use new technology to further that openness.
Britain is a world leader in the use of radio, but maintaining that position and future success and progress depend critically on ensuring adequate supplies of radio spectrum. It is a finite resource, yet demand is increasing as new applications come on stream and existing services grow. Shortages and congestion are developing over time.
If spectrum cannot be made available to allow the speedy introduction of new radio-based services, the cost to the economy can be substantial. That was pointed out in some excellent speeches by my hon. Friends. It has been estimated, for example, that, in the United States, delays in allowing fully fledged competition in mobile telecommunications cost about $50 billion a year in lost consumer welfare.
Closer to home, consultants have calculated that a two-year delay in the introduction in the UK of personal communication network services, such as Orange and One-2-One, would have cost the economy £2.5 billion a year and more than 7,000 jobs. This new Government, with their commitment to our country's welfare, to British industry and to jobs and competitiveness, have no intention of allowing that to happen. We will make progress.
As has been pointed out, at the other end of the scale, a taxi driver denied access to mobile radio because an assignment cannot be found could face additional costs of several thousand pounds a year. Spectrum shortages are extremely costly for businesses of all sizes, from multinational telecommunication corporations to taxi drivers.
Spectrum management is key to making the most effective use of the finite spectrum resource and to reaping the full economic benefits from it. The Bill acts decisively to provide the modern spectrum management tools that we require, to make available the radio spectrum that businesses of all sizes need.
Concerns have been expressed about changes to licence fees. It is true that some fees will go up, but, under our proposals, fee increases will be focused on areas and services where spectrum congestion is worst.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she has some firm proposals about how licence fees will go up. Will she publish those before we get to the later stage of the Bill?

Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting hard. When we reach the later stages of the Bill, we will allow a full debate on that matter. Conservative Members will press us on it—rightly: it is their job to do so—and, under the normal procedure, we will make available all the details we can.
Concern has been expressed this evening about the impact on small business. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to Conservative Members who have talked about small business. As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, small and medium enterprises are dear to my heart. In an excellent and wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) focused on small business and what that meant. The majority of small business users will pay no more than at present or they may pay less—some may pay nearly 50 per cent. less.
I assure hon. Members that fee increases will be no more than those necessary for spectrum management. That assurance is buttressed by clause 2. Hon. Members have made great play of the fact that that requires various factors to be taken into account in assessing fees. Like my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I assure the House that our aim is not to price businesses out of spectrum, but to price them into it by promoting greater spectrum efficiency, thereby making more spectrum available.

Mr. Fallon: The Minister will recall that I asked her—perhaps she is coming to it—whether the compliance cost assessment deposited with the Bill is still valid. She will read in that that an increase of more than 70 per cent is proposed for taxi firms in London, Birmingham and Manchester. How does that help a small business? The compliance cost assessment specifically refers to a taxi firm with only 10 mobiles.

Mrs. Roche: I am glad to hear about the hon. Gentleman's concern for small businesses. He will remember that the previous Government published an assessment. We shall publish an up-to-date one.
I assure the House that our aim is not to price businesses out of spectrum but to price them into it—that theme has been echoed by some of my hon. Friends. That will especially benefit small firms that currently have to be denied access to the spectrum they require. I also assure the House that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, fees under the new system will be fairer, and current distortions against small businesses will be removed. Users will no longer be charged so much more than large businesses for a given amount of spectrum.
The Bill will be good for business. Spectrum pricing will be used to promote greater efficiency in the way in which spectrum is used. In turn, that will provide the headroom that industry needs for future innovation and growth. Many hon. Members have spoken about innovation and creativity, and have dealt particularly with what new market entrants can offer.
The Bill will encourage innovation and creativity. The legislation is vital for the future prosperity of those industries and for our country. Under our proposals, the fee increases that radio users in congested areas face will in all probability be far outweighed by the economic benefits of making more spectrum available.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is not in his place, because he suggested that the Bill would be unnecessary if the Government managed their spectrum more effectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where he is: perhaps he is making the phone calls about which I spoke earlier. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is present and is taking such a close interest in the legislation.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham said that, if only the Government managed their spectrum more effectively, everything would be fine and the legislation would not be needed. That statement is surprising for a number of reasons. I remind the House that Government spectrum is dedicated to essential users such as the armed forces and the emergency services. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to compromise the operational effectiveness of our armed forces or our emergency services.
I do not accept that there is gross inefficiency in the way that spectrum is used in the public sector. For example, the Ministry of Defence has been generally co-operative in returning spectrum to non-military use and sharing spectrum. If the right hon. Member for Wokingham has any hard evidence that the public sector is hoarding spectrum, I should be interested to receive it. I look forward to hearing from him.
Some of the military spectrum is subject to NATO obligations on civil use, and that imposes real constraints on the extent to which it can be used for non-military purposes. I repeat that it cannot be unilaterally converted to non-military use. Much Government use of spectrum is outside major conurbations where main congestion occurs. Looking at the overall division of spectrum without taking account of geographical variations is simplistic and inaccurate. Even if it were possible to transfer more Government spectrum to private sector use, it would be unlikely to meet all the demands in congested areas. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks differently, I should be grateful to hear from him.
I assure the House that we are not complacent. Like other public sector users, the Ministry of Defence will have financial incentives under spectrum pricing to continue to strive to improve spectrum efficiency.
We have received more than 60 responses to our consultation from a broad cross-section of radio users and others, and I am grateful to everyone who participated. The responses confirmed the industry's broad agreement in principle with the use of spectrum pricing as a spectrum management tool.
There was wide recognition of the progress that has been made since the previous Government's White Paper was published. That reflects the fact that we have had the opportunity to hold further discussions with the industry and have listened to what it has said. We place great store on consultation and shall continue our approach of working with industry. I recognise that a number of important issues concerning the application of spectrum pricing remain to be resolved, and that has been referred to in a number of speeches this evening. The responses made a number of helpful and constructive suggestions for further improving the proposals, and we shall be following those up.
I can inform the House that the Radiocommunications Agency will be discussing the proposals and responses with users and industry during the coming weeks, and we shall review them further in the light of that work. We hope to publish later this year a further consultative document which will take account of industry's views, outlining proposals for the introduction of spectrum pricing in 1998. That is vital, and shows our commitment to open discussion in this area. I also expect that the

spectrum management advisory group, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced today, will play a role in that process.
Subject to the enactment of the Bill, our aim is to lay before Parliament the first fees regulations under the new regime early in the next financial year. Those will address the most significant distortions and anomalies arising from the present cost-based fees, whereby the largest users pay far less per unit of spectrum than the smallest.
Again, in the spirit of openness and transparency, and to respond to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, I can further inform the House that I shall place in the Library copies of a document summarising the responses. In addition, as I have said, the Radiocommunications Agency will use the internet site in order further to make available the responses, so that as wide a section of the public as possible can see them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) raised two important issues. First, with regard to monitoring, she suggested that the Radiocommunications Agency should monitor spectrum usage so that efficient users can be rewarded when future allocations or reviews are conducted.
I totally agree that monitoring is an essential component of spectrum management. The agency has a facility that provides a range of terrestrial and satellite monitoring services around the clock, 365 days a year. Its work is key to effective management of the radio spectrum and to dealing with radio interference. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to pay tribute to the agency's hard work in that area.
My hon. Friend also referred to the application of spectrum pricing to small businesses, in particular to taxis. As a fellow London Member, I share her appreciation of our taxis. Radio communications are extremely important to small firms and the efficient conduct of their business. Given my other ministerial responsibilities, it will come as no surprise that in that respect I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that spectrum pricing will be considerably fairer to small business users of radio than the present cost-based fees.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, among others, raised the subject of new entrants to the market. I make it clear that, with regard to auctions, we are talking about new services, such as the third generation of mobile phones. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the advisory group announced this evening will have a key role in advising Ministers on the subjects that he discussed.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the Minister saying that there will be spectrum auctions not for systems that are currently in place—for the normal form of mobile communications—but only for systems comprising a completely new technology?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raised that point in his important speech, and I am delighted to give him the assurance he seeks.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall also raised the issue of competition, which is an important factor that must be taken into account in considering clause 2.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) asked what should be taken into account in conducting auctions. Important factors in considering


auctions include the feasibility of roll-outs and infrastructure investment. We believe that the third generation of mobile telephones will certainly require a great deal of investment by industry, and the Bill provides it with the reassurance it requires.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire raised the issue of radio astronomy. I can assure him that it will be protected. He also mentioned digital technology. New powers in the Bill can certainly be used to provide incentives in the move to digital. I hope that I have reassured him on that matter. He and other hon. Members mentioned clause 5, which provides a new power that will be very important for research.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made a very good speech about auctions, and I hope that my comments will reassure him on that matter. He made very good points about the convergence of broadcasting, telecommunications and the information technology industries, and about how they could win for British industry and for Britain. The success of those industries is important also to the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made an excellent speech about spectrum management.I hope that I have been able to reassure him on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) made an interesting speech dealing with the arguments for spectrum efficiency and with how such efficiency can help small business.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) for his warm welcome for the legislation. I am also grateful for his description of the legislation as an engine that will help to drive British industry in the necessary direction. He also mentioned the important fact that the Bill will help to modernise the infrastructure, enabling our industries to prosper. Those aspects are very important to the Government.
I very much welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth, who said that the Bill can be regarded as not only very technical but of vital importance to the economy. It will provide us with a platform for developing the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who is a distinguished business man, spoke up for small business and told the House what it requires. I thank him very much for his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) expressed his support for the Bill, and made the important point that it is not about raising revenue but about efficient spectrum management. He spoke also about another important aspect of the Bill, which is that it will help in research.
I was also delighted to hear the maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard). It was a wonderful speech, in which he showed, when he talked about the importance of radio and communications and made connections with his constituency, what an able and articulate Member of Parliament he is and what an asset he will be to the House. I am delighted to be able to pay tribute to him.
The question of the attitude of consumers to the Bill has also arisen this evening. I assure the House that the National Consumer Council and the Consumers

Association did not feel that the implications for consumers were significant. The National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities thought that people with disabilities were unlikely to be deterred from using mobile telephones. As has already been mentioned, the National Farmers Union, which was consulted, also supports the Bill.
This evening, we have had a good, far-reaching debate, which has covered many areas. The Bill is a technical one and is necessary for the industry, but it goes wider than that. If this country is to prosper and maintain its competitive position in a global market, we need to exploit our business potential, and the Government have to work in partnership with industry to push forward the technology. We cannot stand still. We cannot, as the Opposition seem to wish, carry on as before and do nothing. We must move forward with the industry, which warmly welcomes the Bill. I am delighted that the majority of speeches we have heard today also welcome it.
The Bill will provide the country with the spectrum management tools we need if we are to meet the challenges that lie ahead and maintain the United Kingdom's place at the cutting edge of the digital communications revolution. We really do face a revolution, and this country can lead the way in the use of the new technology.
We have had some discussion about the meaning of information technology and its effects. A true information society cannot be made up of the information haves and the information have-nots. That is why the Government are dedicated to ensuring that the information society is for all citizens. We want to build a truly competitive society, and the Bill will help to do so. I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate tonight, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Wireless Telegraphy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act, and
(2) any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making—

(a) refunds in respect of charges paid in respect of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, and
(b) grants relating to the efficient use or management of the electro-magnetic spectrum for wireless telegraphy.— [Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Wireless Telegraphy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition, in respect of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, of increased charges payable into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

British Coal (Overseas Competition)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. William Cash: Several years ago, I refused to support the then Government's policy of pit closures. I was brought up in Sheffield and I have a strong attachment to the mining industry. I had miners in my constituency, and still do, many of whom work, or have worked, at Silverdale and Trentham. Many of them lost their jobs.
The current Government were so concerned about opposition from their Back Benchers that they spun out the debate on the Wireless Telegraphy Bill to prevent their Members from coal mining areas perhaps from even being tempted to come to this debate. Who knows?
One of my main arguments at the time of the pit closure programme was my anger at the extent of the unfair German state aids given to the German coal industry, which amounted to about £6 billion a year and were authorised by the European Commission. I said then that that was destroying, and would continue to destroy, the British coal industry and drive British miners out of work. I argued that that unfair competition, aided and abetted by the Commission, was proof that the European Coal and Steel Community was not designed to provide a level playing field but favoured Germany at our expense. What I predicted then has now happened.
I know from my discussions in my constituency that Silverdale management and miners are deeply—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Cash: The Silverdale management and miners in my constituency are deeply concerned about the situation.
Earlier this year, the European Select Committee, of which I am a member, pursued the issue with the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission, and we will, I am sure, continue to do so. Although I regarded the DTI's concern as very late in the day, it made a complaint to the Commission in relation to the 1993 rules under decision 3632/93/ECSC.
The Select Committee reported that the average cost of production in the Community in 1994 was 190 ecu per tonne of coal equivalent, while the price of imported coal scarcely exceeded 43 ecu. Germany and Spain were singled out as the main culprits. Indeed, between 1993 and 1994, the Commission allowed Germany an increase of 71 per cent. in state aids. That massive protection coincided with the pit closure programme in Britain which I opposed.
The state aids were designed to protect German coal intended for electricity generation and its £6 billion state aids compared starkly with the United Kingdom coal aid of a minuscule £15 million this year.
Under pressure from the Select Committee, Commissioner van Miert agreed to look into the unauthorised state aids being given in Germany to subsidise exports of German anthracite to the United


kingdom which undermined the market, damaging Celtic Energy, and many in south Wales who work in the industry and whose jobs are threatened.
New Labour has a serious problem and it is in deep trouble with its voters in the traditional old Labour areas and with all those voters with deep emotional attachment to them. The Prime Minister and the Government are on the rack and in a fix. They cannot control the situation. They are betraying their heritage and the mask of new Labour hides the fear in the faces of their traditional supporters.
I understand that the matter has been with Directorate-General XVII since the end of October 1996. The Commission has now acknowledged that there are grounds for a complaint by Celtic Energy and the German Government are obliged to reply to it by 4 November this year. What is new Labour doing about that?
I can tell hon. Members what the Trades Union Congress has to say this year about the dangers facing the coal industry and the prospects of massive unemployment. It said in a recent paper:
Congress also notes that globally coal will remain the dominant feed stock for electricity generation with demand set to increase substantially in the third world. Congress notes that in large degree the UK's success in reducing CO2 emissions has largely been at a price of colliery closures…Congress is aware that the existing contracts for the supply of coal to electricity generators will come to an end during 1998. Congress is also aware that the Prime Minister"—
no less, who walks on water—
has committed the United Kingdom to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions over the next 12 years and that the reason why the United Kingdom was able to meet its last set of targets was largely related to the artificially imposed 'dash for gas'.
That policy is now being endorsed by new Labour.
The TUC continues:
Congress is appalled at the proposal for a Council Directive prepared by the European Commission relating to the emission of acid gases such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides. If implemented, Britain would pay half the total EU costs and it would lead to the premature closure of all remaining pits and remaining coal-fired power stations before the expiration of their design lives, resulting in substantial economic disbenefits to the UK's national interests.
So much for the national economic interest pronounced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement on Monday—new Labour is killing the coal industry. The TUC paper continues:
This is of particular concern as it appears that the EU' s proposals have been based on inadequate scientific analysis and will deliver no discernable benefit. The General Council is instructed to press the DTI and the Department of Environment to block this destructive proposal in its present form, and demand that a scientifically rigorous cost benefit analysis be undertaken by the European Commission before any further proposals are promulgated.
I ask the Minister to tell me in his reply what new Labour is doing about that. Is it going to block the directive? I want to know in terms.
The problem is not confined to anthracite; it has profound implications for the whole British coal industry and the cost of electricity. If the British coal industry, including developments in clean coal technology, is wiped out by unfair competition, the position will simply worsen. The International Energy Agency reckons that clean coal technology in the global marketplace will be worth £500 billion by 2010—in other words, real investment opportunities—and reduce carbon dioxide

emissions massively. The dash for gas electricity is more expensive than the coal electricity it displaces and nuclear power has received a prodigious £8 billion since 1990.
The Government should extend the coal contracts for two years; they should undertake a fundamental review of the energy and electricity markets to assess value for customers; and they should restabilise the coal industry, which still employs 20,000 people directly and 30,000 indirectly. I dare say that it will strike Labour Members who are still present that many of those people are their own voters. The unfair German state aids for anthracite and steam coal put those people in grave danger. Those aids enable German coal producers to match world prices, even though their costs of production are much higher. Thus, British producers with far lower costs cannot break into the German market. That is a disgrace to the European Union and it is typical of the way in which the European rules are blatantly broken. No wonder the Euro-realist cause is so popular, whatever the Confederation of British Industry may say.
Based on figures produced by the Office of Electricity Regulation, it has been calculated that in 1996–97 coal contracts cost 3.92p per kWh, compared with 4.10p per kWh for electricity generated from gas by the independent power producers. Based on current gas generation into the contracted franchise market for domestic use, the dash for gas is costing customers at least £50 million a year and that will treble from next April, when coal price reductions already agreed or on offer take full effect.
There are also massive problems of unfair competition in coal emerging from China. The coal industry is bearing the financial brunt of the pollution targets to which the Prime Minister is personally committed, so it is he who is putting the industry, its management and its workers at risk. The responsibility is his.
What is new Labour doing about all this? Is it prepared to tackle the German Government? Do the Government think that German miners' jobs are more important than British miners' jobs? At Prime Minister's questions today, my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) raised the issue of coal, and the Prime Minister in reply spoke of competitive prices. I hope that he will read this debate. He will see that it is a case of unfair competition; and the new Labour Government must now be in the gunsights of the hon. Members—many of them here this evening—who represent mining constituencies.
This evening there was a coal crisis all-party meeting at which I heard an enormous amount of good sense talked by advisers to the TUC, by coal management and by some Labour Members. In a few years' time, we were told, 75 per cent. of electricity will be derived from gas. It should be remembered that coal redundancies will increase public expenditure; how will the Government be able to make good the ridiculous commitment in principle, expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to economic and monetary union, which includes the Maastricht criteria that will continue to drive people out of work not just in the coal industry but in every sector of British manufacturing and commerce?
The encouragement given by the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry to the new gas generating plant of Saltend near Hull does not suggest that new Labour takes these issues seriously. What is the Minister's policy? Will he conduct a proper energy and electricity review? Will he


encourage a two-year extension of coal contracts? Will he tackle the European Commission and the German Government? I await his reply with interest.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on securing this Adjournment debate. He has a reputation for campaigning against anything European, but it is perhaps not so well known that he was one of the very few Conservative Members to oppose the Conservative Government's pit closure programme. He deserves credit for that, even though the opposition in the Conservative party at the time was not particularly effective. Still, the hon. Gentleman did speak out against the closures, and he raised the question of state aids. However, the Government he supported did not take much action, I seem to recall.
I should like to quote a letter sent to me by one of the companies concerned. Dated 29 October, it suggests that in the short time we have been in office we have indeed taken action:
As you will be aware, we are very grateful indeed for the support that we have had from you and your Department's officials on this issue"—
the issue of unfair subsidies in Europe—
as well as from Ministers and officials in the Welsh Office. You have taken a very robust stand in support of our position and that has been a very important factor in helping us make our case.
The letter comes from Celtic Energy. Just as I respect what the hon. Gentleman did when the Conservative Government closed the pits, he should respect the fact that we have taken action since entering government.
The United Kingdom coal industry receives no Government aid and has not done so since 1995. In Germany, Spain and, to a lesser extent, France the industry is wholly dependent on state aid. The subsidies are large; they amount in Germany to about £3 billion a year, or £40,000 for each employed miner. In Spain, the subsidy per miner is believed to be even higher.
I ask whether, in the Community outside the United Kingdom, there is a pit or coal mine—there is certainly no deep coal mine—that is viable in its own right without that support. That is important because, in accordance with a 1993 aid decision, operating aid may be given only where the undertaking receiving the aid can show the prospect of economic viability by the year 2002.
Coal production in Europe is governed by the treaty of Paris, which set up the European Coal and Steel Community treaty in 1952. The European Coal and Steel Community has a 50-year life and that framework finally falls away in the year 2002.
The treaty of Paris set out, in article 2, a requirement for the community to
progressively bring about the conditions which will of themselves ensure the most rational distribution of production at the highest possible level of productivity".
Article 4 prohibits
measures or practices which discriminate between producers, between purchasers or between consumers, especially in prices and delivery terms or transport rates and conditions".

That article also prohibits
subsidies or aids granted by States in any form whatsoever".
In the 1960s, an exception was made to that last prohibition, whereby aid could be paid, on an exceptional and strictly temporary basis, to coal mining activities. However, the number of cases dependent on that exceptional provision in the treaty has grown over the years.
The Commission's own 1994 report on the application of the Community rules for state aid noted that
British mines whose production costs were lower than those in other Member States and which were only slightly subsidised have had to be closed for lack of a market while high-cost mines are still being worked elsewhere in Europe—a situation which has helped push up the amount of aid per tonne in the Community very considerably".
One can understand the difficulties that the Commission may have had in the past in enforcing that treaty strictly. Once, all coal-producing states were giving significant aid to their industries and there was little trade in coal between the states or even the potential for trade.
I should like to suggest to the hon. Member for Stone, and the many Labour Members who have turned out for tonight's debate, that the shapes of the energy markets have changed radically, indeed massively, in the past 10, five or even two years. Here in Britain, as a result of the privatisation programme—the separation of power generation, transmission and supply, breaking the sector into separate companies, fragmenting the system so that company now competes with company—traditional levers were totally removed from the hands of Government and state.
Last week, I set in train a full review of the pool—the electricity-buying system. Why? To discover whether there is a fair and transparent market. We are also looking transdepartmentally at the point that the hon. Member for Stone raised regarding acid rain sulphur emissions. I recall that under the Conservative Government, last March, a note was sent to all the power stations, informing them of the new sulphur conditions. Yes, I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment are finding out the situation that we have inherited and what we can do about it to ensure that every power station in Britain, bar Drax and Ratcliffe, is not shut down as a result of the implication of such conditions.
In 1994, following the Conservative Government's coal review, British Coal's five regional coal companies and its seven care and maintenance deep mines were offered for sale. RJB Mining bought 16 deep mines. The Scottish mines were sold to Mining (Scotland) Ltd. The south Wales business was sold to Celtic Energy Ltd. and Tower colliery, a care and maintenance mine in Mid-Glamorgan, was bought out by the former employees. Coal Investments plc, which, sadly, went out of business in 1996, bought six mines, two of which were subsequently sold to Midlands Mining Ltd.; the remainder have closed. At the end of 1996, there were 27 deep mines, employing about 12,500 people in operation, and there were 91 operating opencast sites. That is the context now.
Celtic Energy, the largest producer of anthracite in south Wales, complained to the Department of Trade and Industry about the imports of graded anthracite from two German collieries: Sophia Jakoba and Ibbenburen. The complaint concerned aid that the German Government were giving to those mines for the production of


anthracite intended for the German power station market. That aid was leaking out and being applied to German exports of graded anthracite to the UK. The subsidised exports had not received Commission approval for state aid. The graded anthracite was being sold at well below production cost and was being priced aggressively to undercut prevailing market prices.
Celtic pointed out the serious financial damage that was being caused not only to its operations but to small anthracite producers in south Wales, several of which sadly went out of business in 1996. The UK Government conveyed Celtic Energy's complaint to the Commission and, in August this year, the Commission sent a formal notice to the German Government asking them to justify that prima facie abuse. The notice was published in the Official Journal on 23 August. I emphasise that that is an important document, which sets out the Commission's interpretation of the 1993 aid decision. In the notice, the Commission concluded that the complaint lodged by Celtic and the subsequent investigation gave reason to believe that irregularities could have occurred in connection with the coal sales on the Community market by the two German companies.
The irregularities noted were, first, that the normal function of the market and of competition had been disrupted by the infringement of competition rules; secondly, that state aid had been used directly or indirectly for purposes that were distorting competition between Community producers; and, thirdly, that Germany had failed in its obligation to ensure compliance with the Commission's decisions and recommendations.
The Commission then invited other interested parties to comment. In September, my Department responded to that invitation in full. We endorsed the Commission's preliminary conclusion that the aid given in that case undermined the stability of the coal market in the Community. We agreed with the Commission that the two companies' behaviour could be considered to be unfair competitive practice.
In March 1997, Sophia Jakoba colliery closed. Celtic Energy was then able to secure a contract for the supply of Welsh anthracite to meet German markets previously supplied by that company. However, Ibbenburen continues to market its domestic anthracite aggressively, both in Britain and elsewhere in north-west Europe, in direct competition with UK producers.
At the beginning of 1997, Celtic Energy bid to supply the power station at Ibbenburen in Germany at prices that were less than half the production cost of the adjacent Ibbenburen mine. The offer was rejected. In the light of that, the Department of Trade and Industry lodged a further formal complaint to the Commission that state aid to Ibbenburen distorts competition. We drew the Commission's attention to the proposed merger of Ibbenburen with the dominant German producer, Ruhrkohle, and expressed concern that that would increase the possibility of continued abuse of state aid.
In the light of the damage to the south Wales producers caused by Ibbenburen over the past two years, the Department of Trade and Industry then invited the Commission to impose punitive financial penalties on the company. More importantly, we urged the Commission to require repayment of the state aid granted to Ibbenburen last year and the denial of any further state aid in 1997.
The current position on Celtic's complaint is, I understand, that the German Government have now replied to the Commission's formal notice and the Commission is considering its next step. We continue to urge on the Commission the need for quick action in this case because we agree that it is entirely unfair that people are being put out of business by unfair practices supported in Europe.
Ruhrkohle's collieries receive by far the largest share of German state aid. In the annual "Energy Report", which the DTI published just two months ago, I said that we were also preparing a report about the state aid paid to Ruhrkohle. There is evidence that the UK industry tried to sell coal to German power stations supplied by Ruhrkohle, at prices less than half the production costs of German mines, but the offers were rejected.
Our concerns are not just about the way in which state aid for Ruhrkohle appears to distort competition. Aid is also being given on a long-term basis as part of a plan stretching well into the year 2005. That is clearly inconsistent with the exceptional and temporary nature of any state aid allowed under the original treaty.
Perhaps most important of all, state aid for the high-cost mines cuts across the treaty requirement that the Community should be working towards a "rational distribution of production". I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it is not rational for our industries to be denied access to continental markets because of state aid. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we are taking action to tackle that.
We have recently lodged two complaints against Spain as well. The first complaint relates to the sulphur content. Spanish power stations are allowed to buy Spanish coal with a sulphur content ranging up to 6 per cent. Imported coal, however, including UK coal, is limited to a sulphur content of 1 per cent.
Even on the rules of the game relating to environmental constraints, different rules are being applied, and we will continue to challenge that as a clear case of discrimination. There is some evidence that it has deterred producers from seeking opportunities in European markets. We hope that we can get the Commission to move quickly on these matters.
The second complaint is more fundamental. We have objected, among other things, to the long-term payments of state aid to mines that clearly have no hope of economic viability. The Commission is considering that complaint as well, and we hope that our complaints about Spanish and German companies are being taken seriously.
I hope that Spanish producers and their German counterparts will co-operate with UK producers to identify ways of achieving a more rational distribution of production in the Community, so that one producer does not drive out another by unfair competition. We will continue to press for urgent action.
I shall mention Poland, although it is not yet a member of the European Community. It is looking to join the EC. Its behaviour on state aid is therefore governed to some extent by the treaties of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. Poland is expected to supply about half a million tonnes to this country in 1997. Some of that is house coal, but some is for power stations and industry.
We are examining carefully the extent to which Polish coal is being sold in our markets at prices below production costs and driving out UK production. The position is not wholly clear, but we will pursue the matter vigorously.
Let me sum up by referring to a written answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in which I stated:
I mean to press for the elimination of all coal subsidies throughout the European coal and steel community by the time the ECSC is wound up in 2002, and I will support the Commission vigorously in ensuring progressive reduction in state aid paid to the European coal industry over this period."—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 420.]
It is not our policy to allow subsidies in Germany, Spain, Poland or elsewhere to adversely affect the UK coal industry. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that within weeks of taking office, our Government took practical action to tackle the unfair competition with which European coal threatens us.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the coal contracts. I note that the negotiations between one of the companies—RJB Mining—and the generators are continuing. The outcome may not be known for some weeks. I understand that other producers have successfully concluded their contracts. I hope that the

contracts that RJB is negotiating for after March next year can be concluded. Tackling unfair competition in Europe is not a substitute for RJB Mining negotiating those post-March contracts with the power generators.
The Government are considering how we can encourage the introduction of competitive clean coal technology. We have done the joined-up thinking between what was going on in energy, science research and environmental technology to see how we can promote that as an option for a viable coal future.
In the utility review we are reviewing the entire gas and electricity market. We are tackling renewable energy as a means of meeting our targets for carbon dioxide. We are working to make our policy diverse, secure and sustainable. It is not easy in a world where the levers were removed by the previous Government. Sadly, despite the hon. Gentleman's honourable efforts on behalf of the coal industry and the people working in it, when the Government of the day made those decisions, he could not win the argument, and we have been left with the legacy of those decisions. Even in the short time that we have had, we have been working hard to tackle that legacy and to try to ensure a viable future.

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.